Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Don Martin (Austin, Texas). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Until the copyright issue has been resolved, the PUFC tag must remain on the image anywhere it is used in article space. GregJackP (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verification was emailed to Wikipedia at their request. I am not editing the article, simply providing the photos. Dmartinaus (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. You just editted the article. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation

Please do not edit your article at all. If you feel a change is warranted, post the suggested change on the article talkpage. Please see the COI warning you received this morning. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see this as a WP:COI - Don's sole purpose in this was to grant copyright permission for a photo, and he has stated on other image related pages that he would not edit the article, he was merely providing Wikipedia the rights to the photo that someone else initially uploaded and posted to the article. I know that he has tried to follow the proper copyright release procedure and that he has made no other edits to the article, or any related articles. GregJackP (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I missed the other edit - Morenooso is correct on his suggestion. GregJackP (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not editing. The issue of and warning given against me re the photograph perplexes me. You asked for a properly licensed photo and I provided it. That is all. Is that now properly resolved to everyone's satisfaction? If so, then the tag can now be removed. I see no reson for me individually to even sign onto the edit page again. Although you can imagine my frustration at what all I am seeing taking place on an article that someone else entirely, started about me. Dmartinaus (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reaading the guidelines re Biographies of Living Persons it appears I have every right to make minor edits, as well as other edits that are entirely neutral in tone and do not violate CIO issues. And to disucss edits here. My intent is not to make significant edits, however. Dmartinaus (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noted on the Don Martin image page that you indicated that you were the copyright holder. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials on how to do this. Wikipedia does not normally accept a posted statement that the copyright is released due to the legal issues involved. Normally they will take an e-mail from someone with the name of the copyright holding entity in the domain (i.e. someone@ibm.com for an image from IBM). You can also contact WP:OTRS for help and more info. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the second photo, the professional photographer emailed a signed copyright release form to Wikipedia today. That photo has been taken down until approved. Dmartinaus (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.Template:Do not delete --moreno oso (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may remove your tag. I have no intention of editing the article or getting drug into this escalating war. The validity of the photograph was questioned and since it is owned by me I replaced with with a properly copyright licensed photo. Please note that I did check COI in advance regarding doing so. It reads as follows: Editors who may have a conflict of interest may nevertheless add material that accords with the Photographs and media files or Subject and culture sector professionals sections. . . .Wikimedia Commons encourages parties with potential conflicts of interest to upload digital media files, such as photographs, illustrations, audio files, and video clips, so long as the media is of good quality, is in a format we use, and the copyright holder is willing do so under one of the free licenses we accept." If you like you may revert the minor edit, and then go to Wikimedia Commons and re-add it yourself, then "my hands will be clean" regarding the photograph. Dmartinaus (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Don Martin (Austin, Texas). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please keep your tone civil and your comments constructive. You made two edits to this talk page which were clearly unconstructive, provocative, and personal attacks. Though I discourage involvement in this article due to your clear conflict of interest, you are welcome to rephrase your edits to offer a civil addition to the discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC) 20:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no edits to the article or talk page other than the photograph (which I own and therefore I alone can give permission). I told you I would not edit either one and I have not. Dmartinaus (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You left rather nasty comments on the talk page; do not confuse me for others who have warned you about conflict of interest here, I have no issue with you making minor edits to the article so long as you bear in mind the conflict of interest guidelines and do not make large changes or disrupt the neutrality of the article. I haven't seen any evidence that you've been making any significant changes to the aticle which would merit a COI warning. Your comments on the talk page were unconstructive and constituted a personal attack on multiple editors, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that my negative comments were directed toward the editor that called me "Sleaze No 1" re the lawsuit. That ws totally uncalled for and showed tremendous bias against me relating to their interpretation of the lawuit. Dmartinaus (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Don. I noticed you requested mediation of a dispute concerning the biography about you and I just wanted to make sure that you know that if there are problems with the article about you or you feel that the legal matter is being given undue weight, thus violating the Biographies of Living People policy, you are welcome to utilise the Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer response team who specialise in assisting subjects of articles and addressing questions and concerns they may have. You can write to the team at info-en-qwikimedia.org. You can also find some advice for article subjects who have problems with biographies about themselves at the Article problems page. Regards, Sarah 02:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is to advise you that consensus was achieved on the section in question, thanks to an outside suggestion by SheffieldSteel. Comments on the section have be tentatively closed, baring objection from those involved. I for one appreciate the efforts of everyone that worked on this, even though at times it did get contentious. All involved editors are receiving this notice. GregJackP (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Austex. You have new messages at Talk:Don Martin (Austin, Texas).
Message added 06:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregJackP (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don, assuming good faith, I'm sure that your post was made with the best of intentions, but I would only like to remind you of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to avoid COI edits point #2, which states: "Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors." Regards, GregJackP (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don, please stop accusing others of making "attacks" by providing neutral, well-sourced information about a lawsuit in which you were involved. If you continue to accuse others of "attacking" you, it is likely to be considered a personal attack. Please also bear in mind that an AfD discussion is not the place to be making general comments on the article. The AfD page should only be used to make comments directly relevant to the deletion discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don, I was told by an admin that I was incorrect on my comment above, that in an AfD the reasoned comments by the subject of a BLP are welcomed. My apologies for giving you incorrect info. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Request for mediation concerning Don Martin (Austin, Texas), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Dmartinaus, I'm copying my comment from the articles for deletion page:

Additional comment -- although I think the article should stay, mostly because I participated in an ongoing discussion that resulted in a consensus, everyone involved in editing should be extra cautious about the content and keep in mind that Don Martin's real life is affected by what is written. Negative info should be presented with extreme sensitivity toward neutrality. To Dmartinaus (talk), I imagine this process is very stressful, but a cold reading of the article about you does not paint you in a negative light or portray you as a bad guy, in the balance. You're a big name in PR, and there is nothing in the article that is not available elsewhere on the internet for anyone to read. It does not reflect poorly on your family, and I see nothing about the article that would damage your clients or your reputation. It is clear you have controversial clients -- why else would they need a PR consultant? Try not to lose sleep because it is not as negative as you perceive. I don't think anyone is trying to harm you. Peace. Minor4th (talk) 1:15 am, Today (UTC−5)

I know this is distressing to you. Don't lose sleep! Minor4th (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Minor4th.

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Martin (public affairs), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Martin (public affairs). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain - Orangemike, you will see that I am a relative newbie here, started editing only in late May as I recall. I have been extra careful to research, read and follow policies and procedures to the best of my ability. You can see many instances where I have cited references re policies in my comments on the talk pages. Can you please explain to me where and how I have "vandalized"? Also you state this is my final warning but I cannot find anywhere that I received a first warning re vandalism. I am truly not trying to be argumentative, I am just trying to understand. Would you please elaborate? I am also more than happy to revert anything that is considred vandalism. Dmartinaus (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted somebody else's comments on a talk page about yourself; that's pretty egregrious; you've got a history of COI edits, and weren't always forthcoming about the COI. Nonetheless, the initial vandalism warning was too harsh, and has been stricken. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you re the warning change. I do not recall having received previous warnings, although I may well have and did not know it. Dmartinaus (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CIO edit accusations: I have "a history of CIO edits"???? While I know there have been COI accusations as you have stated, I, myself, have been careful to disclose who I am at every opportunity in that regard. I am told by some editors (Sarah for example - see article deletion talk page) that I am allowed to make non-controversial edits on a BLM page about myself (obviously I made a controversial one above while doing "clean up" for which I have apologized). I beleive that your statement about me is not accurate and that I do not have "a history of COI edits," but rather there is the perception of same from other editor comments. Some editors have rigorously construed on the talk pages of this article that ANY edit I make is a by default an automatic CIO edit. Is that your reading of the policies? I'd like to get the issue resolved so I am not violating one editor's rules and ok by another's interpretation. Is there an administrator we can invite in to make the policy clear? Dmartinaus (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'I'm now going to get on my soapbox for a moment about issues that are really troublesome to me: You will note in a thorough reading of the talk pages and archives that I have been personally and repeatedly attacked over issues such as the lawsuit paragraph for my disagreement about it. I have been called a "sleaze," "a liar," that my book is a vanity book, that citations don't really cite my invovlement when they clearly do, threated with revelation of other articles written about my clients, accused of advertising, that I wrote the article, (I did not write the original article in any manner whatsoever), been drug through the mud over the lawsuit (which I still think is grossly inaccurately protrayed but I reluctantly agreed to the paragraph as a consensus move.) Yes, I have struck back at times with harsh rejoinders and when I did I ALWAYS got slapped for it while it appears that the editor making the original comment was usually left alone. In many ways I wish the article had never been started because I am in a constant battle to now ensure its accuracy. I have to say that as someone who is simply trying to defend my personal and business reputation from criticism and critical but mostly untrue edits, and as a very new editor, that I have been made to feel extremely unwelcome at Wikipedia by a few certain editors, and I have been pushed around, threatened, accused of violations of every kind, slapped for vandalism, accused of CIO, etc until I lie awake at night worrying about how this article will affect my business and my clients. All of the many notices on Wikipedia to editors to cut newbies some slack and to assume the best of intentions have never applied here to me. It has truly been a long, confusing, miserable, distrustful and at times a truly, truly frightening experience for me. Many editors here seem to default to an "assume the worst" position on every single issue. It's all academic to them, yet this affects me personally and my business! That's just the way I see it, how I feel about the process, and I feel like it needs to be stated. This is solely my opinion, and for the record let me disclose once again that I am Don Martin, subject of the article. Dmartinaus (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using the account 4804BT? The messages on my talk page are very concerning and lead me to believe that you have been using 4804BT as a sockpuppet. Both accounts were used to vote in the AFD, which is very concerning to me and I'm considering asking the closing admin to review the results in light of this. If you are using both accounts, please make it clear on your pages and choose one account and one account only to deal with issues related to the Don Martin article. Having two accounts "crossing streams" (editing the same pages, participating the same AFDs etc) is a blatant violation of the sockpuppetry policy and ordinarily I'd block both accounts for disruptive and deceptive sockpuppetry, especially in light of the double-voting at AFD. The only reason I'm not doing so at the moment is I want you to be able to comment on your own article but I'm not going to tolerate sockpuppetry so please make up your mind and stick to one account. Sarah 23:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am happy to answer this honestly and forthrightly. I am not using two accounts. However, it IS true that 4804BT is someone close to me who offered to help resolve some of the issues calmly and is in my office. I beleive the only edits he has made were accompanied by polite requests for approval and done very carefully. And has not done anything sine I agreed last night to back out. Nevertheless there is no doubt a CIO violation of some kind. I went in to the office by myself this evening to do some work before leaving town Monday and used the same computer and did not "sign in" and was surprised to see later that what I wrote was on his account, not mine. I immediately reverted them and put them in my name as can be seen in the history. I personally will ONLY use dmartinaus. Dmartinaus (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining that and I can accept that explanation. This is what we call "meatpuppetry" and its when people bring in other people they know "in real life" to help them with on-site disputes and it's really not a good idea. We have the ability to examine technical data related to the computers and IPs used by accounts, so it's not advisable to have other people at the same location editing the same pages, especially difficult and contentious pages and ones where there is a personal investment because such accounts are technically indistinguishable from sockpuppets and will end up being blocked as socks. When we have partners, family members, housemates, colleagues, and so forth editing from the same place, we generally advise them to avoid participating in the same discussions. I'm not going to block his account but I don't advise him to continue participating in the Don Martin article while you're still involved, but if he does want to continue, he really needs to be clear with everyone that he's not an independent and uninvolved party (though he's welcome to continue editing other pages). I noticed he has his email address on this userpage. I'm going to put a nospam template on it so it doesn't look like an email address to spambots crawling the pages for email addresses or he'll end up being swamped with spam. Sarah 00:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On another note, I started reverting some of the harsher things I had said re Nightmare (although I still do not agree about many things). Is it OK with you if I continue to so so on the talk page only? I am not doing ANY edits to the article whatsoever. Dmartinaus (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends which messages you're talking about. It's not a good idea to remove comments people have already replied to because it makes the conversation that follows not make sense. If there are already responses, we usually strikeout comments we wish to retract. You can do this by placing <s></s> tags around the text. Some of the discussion would probably be better of just being archived though so we can start with a clean slate. I will have a look at the article's talk page in a moment and see what I can archive. Sarah 00:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You may wish to block the 4804BT site for added comfort. Dmartinaus (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just had an edit conflict with you while I was archiving the article's talk page. I've tried to restore your strikeouts to messages that are still on the page but you might want to double-check them just in case I've missed anything or made any mistakes. Sarah 01:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are still 22 so you actually only dropped six out of 28. Not bad. Unless someone else thinks anything else should go or wants to argue that anything should be put back in, it seems the refs are solid. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

I have just now commented on some of the deletions and agreed with others on the article Talk page. You all can decide if you want to make changes or not. I'm just commenting. Carry on, and I'll make very brief comments if necessary on any future deletions, without reacting too much or being to sensitive. I am out of town Monday and most of Tuesday so will make no comments until then. I did see some inadvertent errors and mistakes in the editing so far on the article itelf, as well as some excellent edits too. Dmartinaus (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don,

I hope that I am wrong, but it appears that you may be involved in sock-puppetry in regards to the BLP where you are the subject of the article. There have been a number of instances with User:Austin3301 where that account has edited your posts and vice versa, various statements that were made, etc, that could lead one to believe that you were controlling the account. The same occurred with User:4804BT. Similar patterns are now appearing with User:Jessi0421. That account's edits are very similar to your proposals and Austin3301 edits. See WP:DUCK for part of the reasons I believe the above.

If this is in fact the case, I would strongly recommend that you stop. Wikipedia takes a very dim view of sock-puppetry and has a very thorough process for investigating them. Violators are typically blocked from editing. If I am wrong, my apologies. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP I absolutely understand your concerns. I am also going to copy this to Sarah's page where Nightmare has suggested placing an Afd for purposes of killing the article once and for all. Re your concerns: 1) Sarah and I discussed the issues of 4084BT previously and 4804BT backed out. As for austin3301 he admitted earlier to being too close to the subject overall (and I beleive he said too "heated") and recused himself from editing, and indicated that most if not all of his edits have already been reverted by others. But as to Jesse0421 I have my suspicions who this is and if so he does in fact know me from a PREVIOUS employee relationship from several years ago -- not recent -- but we have ABSOLUTELY not in ANY way communicated about editing the piece or about edits to make. In fact we have NEVER EVEN discussed the page at all although he may well have heard about it in general through others. There is absolutely no collusion and no relationship betwen myself and him.. However I certainly understand that as someone who knows me and my history pretty well that he has tried to make both favorable edits, but also edits for accuracy. The edits I saw seemed A) fairly neutral to me, B) they clean up up obvious basic errors that other editors could not have known C)he explained the rationale of each and every edit and said that they are welcome to be reverted and D) that these conclude all of the edits he was going to make. Dmartinaus (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are really down to you, me, Nightmare and perhaps Sarah on finishing the article, plus these one set only of recent edits from Jesse0421 offered in the spirit of cleaing up items he is aware of. I have not review them closely but the don't appear to me to "favor" me or add advertising as Nighmare purports. Admittedly I am biased but I honesstly don't see that ANY of them add an advertising interest that NIghtmare alledges. I'll go bck and look and if they do I'll recommend they be changed. Several correct significant errors by Nightmare in his editing (EXAMPLE: changed to "wrote' book versus 'published" book - I was not the publisher; Arcadia Publishing was). I'd like to hear your take on the actual edits. If any of them need to be reverted for some reason then they definitely should be reverted. I am concerned however that Nightmare is unwilling to accept ANY edits that are not his and is working behind the scenes to kill the page as indicated in writing above. We've come too far for that I hope. Dmartinaus (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of comment on GregJackP's talk page:

Comment- 4084BT lists an email address on his user talk page that indicates his name is "Ray Henry." If I remember correctly, that is the same name that Austin disclosed as his "real" name (but it's been a while). Both Austin and 4084 have made edits and either signed your name or have spoken in the first person as if they were in fact Don Martin, as opposed to someone who knows him. See hereand here and here for 4084BT edits, one of which is signed "Don Martin". Seehere and here and here for Austin3301 edits in which Austin complains of his edits being reverted and then rewords them, when it was actually Dmartinaus' edits that had been reverted. Also, see here and here for Austin edit/revision that appears to be made by a Don Martin persona. These edits are troubling to me because several editors interacted with Dmartinaus, Austin3011 and 4048BT in the course of AfD discussion, talk page extended discussion and much haggling over editing. NineteenNightmares got blocked as a result of some of those discussions, presumably because he got so frustrated. I do not know how to do a sock puppet investigation or if this is the type of scenario that warrants it, but this is troubling.

GregJackP, you have much more experience than I do on Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts about how to proceed or is this an issue that should be left alone? And with respect to Dmartinaus, if I have drawn the wrong conclusion, I apologize. If I have not drawn the wrong conclusion -- I still understand the stress and angst involved in having an article written about you that you feel is painting you in a bad light or is not accurate. I would not want to be in your shoes. Minor4th (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment -- I see above where there is already a discussion with Sarah about 4084BT and the use of the office computer. I accept that explanation as well. The common "Ray Henry" name, however, is still troubling since the Austin3011 username also used that name and made edits that seemed to come from Don Martin in the first person. I don't care to make outright accusations because there could well be an explanation like the one you gave above. I simply observe that it looks odd and is a bit troubling for the reasons GregJackP stated as well. Minor4th (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

statement of fact 4804BT has signed a statement on my talk page "Don Martin." 'Nuff said. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re OrangeMike You are entirely correct that I am an interested party (although I am not Dmartinaus). Dmartinaus (who is the real Don Martin and only Don Martin) recently explained this to User:Sarah on her talk page, and I am doing it myself here so that it is fully disclosed. We are in the same office and share computers from time to time, and often did not check to see that the other had signed out. Hence going back to retract things written on the wrong account, and ocassionally Martin signing his real name but it coming out on my account instead. I am the one to blame for this as I should not have been be editing at all as I am a closely related party and an interested party who was only trying to help. My comments were relatively few and were much calmer than Martin. While I didn't specifically coordinate with Martin, I am a closely related party and therefore have a Conflict of Interest. Therefore, like austin3301, I am no longer going to have any involvement at all with the Martin article either in discussions or editing. My sincere apologies for doing so, as well for my role that has additionally made things only more confusing. I have no objection if you wish to block my account for some period of time until the martin article is resolved. I am signing off completely so as not to endanger or damage Martin re working to get as accurate an article as possible. 4804BT (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Austex. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 00:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Donald G. Martin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald G. Martin. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

I am absolutely speechless, Nightmare, that you did this rather than trying to reach consensus. And you did not even have the courtesy to do it on the article talk page. I have meticulously laid out the edits made by Jessie 0421 above, that you questions, yet you offered no response at all. I can only assume that you feel that if you don't get your way 100% of the time then you want the article deleted. So to be completely fair and open, let's take your Afd arguments one at a time:

1) That as the subject I am "very vocal" about edits. You're darned tootin' I am as this affects my life very much (it does not, however, affect YOUR life). Under Wiki policy I have verified repeatedly that I have every right to express my opinion on the talk page. I even have the right to do some edits, too, but I have not done so and have limited my comments to the talk pages only.

2)Your edits have been reverted: I think that may be because many of your edits have been flat out wrong. Neverthless I have not reverted any of them and those that have reverted them are not, as you contend, from editors related to me. That is a trojan horse argument.

3) Some editors have been close to me:' True but these have been exposed and disclosed and they are no longer editing. Also I am not editing as you can surely see in the History listings. I can assure you that the primary editors GregJackP, Minor4th, Moreno oso, Gifter and Sarah are NOT in any way related to me or even know me. In fact I have had heated arguments with just about all of them.

4) That the development mentions are intended to blatantly advertise:' BS. All of these projects are long since completed. There is no reason or benefit in advertising. But they do go to show notability (which you continue to question) as well as significance. Who do you know that runs a highly respected full-time Public Affairs firm, writes a book, and has developed over 4 million s.f. of the most significant commerical development in the Austin metro area? Of course they deserve mentioning. If there are parts that you think are advertising, then point them out for others to decided instead of making generic complaints.

5) Sources are sketchy; not easy to verify' Have you not seen the web site that I set up strictly because of your continuing complaints, at great trouble to myself, where I downloaded EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE for you to review and fully verify. We may not agree on all references, but they are darn sure not "sketchy" or "uneasy to verify." That's a flat out mistatement of the truth.

6) The business includes an "exaustive" list of clients: Not true. If you want to see an "exhaustive" list of my clients please see http://www.donmartin.com/clients. This text lists only a few of the more signifiant onces which is important to show the level of my clientelle and thus notability. As I told you already many, many other consultant sites list their clients. Some even have entire section titles called "clients:". Is there a Wikipedia policy against listing clients? It goes, again, to show notbility. Here are some other examples for you to look at: Ken Sunshine, Elliot Mintz, Ed Evangelista, and Bill Hillsman. I have ten more if you'd like them. This complaint is entirely unfounded.

7) the article is about the business not the man: BS. Just look at the article. The business is only one section, and IT IS WHO I AM. It is, after all 'Don Martin' Public Affairs not Exxon. How could you possibly write an article about Don Martin without information on Don Martin Public Affairs?????

As I see it 100% of your arguments for the Afd are completely without merit. Why then do you persist daily in questionig over and over again the same things, such as the articles which are posted specifically for YOU to read and verify. If you have time to write complaints, you have time to skim the articles. I think you have a terrible case of vendetta against this article and against me that for the life of me I do not understand. Dmartinaus (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmartinaus for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. GregJackP (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

==Sockpuppetry - Defending yourself against claims==

 (Note this is a copy of the statement I placed on my own talk page)

You are entirely correct that I am an interested party (although, however, I am not Dmartinaus). Don Martin (who is Dmartinaus) recently explained this to User:Sarah on her talk page, and I am doing it myself here so that it is fully disclosed. We are in the same office and share computers from time to time, and often did not check to see whether the other had signed out. Hence the reason for going back to retract things when one discovers to his horror that it written on the wrong account, and also why ocassionally Martin signed his real name but it coming out on my account. Regardless, I am the one to blame for this as I should not have been be editing at all as I am a closely related and interested party who was only trying to help Martin. My comments were relatively few and were much calmer than Martin. While I didn't specifically cordinate with Martin, I am a closely related party and therefore have a Conflict of Interest. Therefore, like austin3301 earlier, I am no longer going to have any involvement at all with the Martin article either in discussions or editing. I am afraid many of us have gotten caught up in the raging and heated debate over the Lawsuit section language, and now in the continued false alegations of NN. My sincere apologies for doing so, as well as serving to make things only more confusing. I have no personal objection if you wish to block my account for some period of time until the martin article is resolved, although I'd like to be able to come back in the future since I am still a newby at Wikipedia. I will sign off completely so as not to endanger or damage Martin re his ongoing work to get as accurate an article as possible. 4804BT (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See comments on the proper page instead; Dmartinaus (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:My little brother did it may prove to be useful reading. --Deskana (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Don, but given the result of the checkuser's examination of the technical data, which shows that one person is behind this set of accounts, I've blocked you. Because you're the subject of an article here, I've set it to two weeks but you should know that I very nearly just indefinitely blocked you. For the next two weeks, you're welcome to leave comments here on this talk page if there are factual errors with the article but you're not welcome to edit further than this. If you create any more accounts, we will have to look at blocking your IP range so please take this seriously. The rest of the accounts identified by the checkuser are all indefinitely blocked. Sarah 23:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. And I understand the seriousness. Even though it says they are all one and the same, that is not accurate at all, but as you say meatpuppetry and working with others is one-and-the same "as if" it is all sockpuppetry and I accept that. By the way, I honestly don't know who Jessie0421 is.

When the block occurred I was answering back your comments about references. Can I move that text here to finish the thought? (Don Martin) Dmartinaus (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Never mind. Don't want to cause any trouble. Dmartinaus (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other last question: Since the other sites are blocked indefinitely, will those talkpages etc all be blanked? (don) Dmartinaus (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser isn't perfect, it only gives us the technical data related to the computers and internet used by the accounts, and we can't actually tell who is controlling the accounts, which is why we also look very closely at the behavioural evidence, editing, writing styles and language similarities. In your case, all this evidence combined with the technical data and it's a pretty compelling case. I fully accept that it's possible that all these accounts actually belong to individual employees in your office, who in trying to please you, got carried away and forgot themselves, but ultimately it really doesn't matter because they have edited in a way that has made them technically and behaviorally indistinguishable from sockpuppets. For Jessie0421 to be confirmed as a sock, it's obviously someone editing from there. If you want to know who it is, perhaps you could ask your tech people to look at the days and times s/he was editing and see if they can check your system's logs and work out who it was that accessed those Wikipedia pages s/he was editing at that day and time. We can't release technical data so we can't help you with that but it's just a suggestion. You really might not know who Jessie0421 is, but they're obviously someone sufficiently close enough that they're using your computer and it makes their claim that they just worked for you years ago nonsense as their connection to you is obviously not in the past. The other accounts won't be blanked, no, not at the moment. I will have to tag their talk pages with block messages and then in a few weeks/months the talk pages might be deleted if there's no substantive discussion in the page histories are there have been no further problems, but we don't have the technical ability to delete accounts so they will always exist here. Sarah 02:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info. Can they all be set up for some sort of bot to check in a few months time and then archive or delete? Dmartinaus (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

No, as I said, whether they end up being archived or even deleted depends on what happens from here. It's not an automatic thing so they can't be marked for automatic deletion. The situation in the future will need to be considered by an admin who will decide if there's any need to keep them. I'm not sure why you care about their talk pages. If they're not your accounts then I really don't understand why you're so interested in them or why you care about them being archived or deleted. Sarah 03:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of the vigorous discussion and heated debate that carries across all pages (even on your, JGP, Mino4th pages - although I'm not asking about those) - at least some of the nastitness would be nice to have go away evenutally. Or maybe just be archived instead. (Don Martin) Dmartinaus (talk)

==Edits for Your Consideration==

:Well I see the hounds are already out rapidly editing, which is fine. Two requests for your consideration please: