User talk:Sean D Martin

You might very well think that. This user couldn't possibly comment.

Vandalism Thanks

Sean - having some more vandalism done on the Dave Bishop page you helped tidy up before - have requested temporary protection from user Jjor - do you have any other suggestions? -- talk

Nope. My efforts against vandalism tend to be where I happen to see it. I only stand watch on very few specific pages of personal interest. Sean Martin 16:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Well, thanks for trying to revert it! :) Glad at least someone is watching my back... -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Query

Hiya, just curious, are you any relation to author Sean Martin? Or is it just a naming coincidence? --Elonka 00:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope relation that I know of. Just a naming coincidence. Reasonably common name, actually. --Sean Martin 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of 'minor edit'

Hi, I've noticed that you have been marking all your recent edits as minor. Many, however, have not, including: [1], [2], and [3]. While these, like many, were mostly simple cleanups, you also added, removed or changed content, instead of just simple formatting. Please be more careful about using the M notation. thanks. ThuranX 01:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have the "Mark all edits minor by default" flag turned on since teh majority of my edits are, as you note, mostly simple cleanups. Even some of the specific edits you cite fall within the definition of what makes a minor edit. At [4] I combined two sentences into one, added a penenthetical clarification, fixed spelling and at [5] I alpabetized a list and added some info I can't believe requires any review or could ever be the subject of a dispute.

Going forward, I'll be more conscious of using the minor tag, but I don't think I've used it inappropriately in "many" of my edits. -- Sean Martin 17:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

thank you for your assistance. i've now reported the user for repeated vandalism. Whateley23 23:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Award

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Dear Sean, your edits, reverts, and efforts against vandals are greatly appreciated. Best wishes and Keep up the good work --Cyril Thomas 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice to be noticed/appreciated. -- Sean Martin 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, and you certainly deserves it. --Cyril Thomas 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Donna Rice

You made a tiny edit to this article, removing the word "first" describing Gary Hart's 1988 presidential campaign, commenting that he surely didn't have more than one that year. However, strange as it may seem, he actually did. The first one was as the front runner, ending in the photographs with Miss Rice... the second one was some months later, as he resumed his campaign, this time as a fringe candidate and butt of late night talk show comedy routines. See our article on him, which is a bit kinder than that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Well, thanks for trying to revert it! :) Glad at least someone is watching my back... -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Woodinville

Contrary to your recent updates to the Woodinville page indicated that portions of the city extend into Snohomish county is inaccurate (ref official city limits map http://www.ci.woodinville.wa.us/Images/Maps/City%20Limits.pdf). While portions of Snohomish county are serviced by the Woodinville post office (hence a Woodinville address) and a small portion of Snohomish county lies within the Woodinvile Urban Growth Area - the coporate boundaries are entirely within King County. - D Brocha (Woodinville City Councilmember Position 7 and former Woodinville Mayor)

*cough*

[6] Don't play with the trolls, please. HalfShadow 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter David

I noticed you reverted my change. I read your edit summary and that had not occurred to me. Thanks you for correcting my oversight. :) -WarthogDemon 15:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Riverton High School

Why do you keep deleting the themes section on the Riverton High School article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.80.8 (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not clear to me what you mean by "keep deleting" it since I made only one edit to the Riverton High School page. And that was to reverse some obvious vandalism. While, personally, I'd like to see a High School stand up and have a year-long theme that is supportive of gays, I really doubt "Gay is the Way" was selected over "Stand up and be Strong". Particularly when the edit was made by someone (as anonymous as yourself, coward) who has made no non-vandalising edits ever.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis L. Goeckel

You didn't finish this AfD; I finished it for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Phillips Exeter Academy alumni

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Phillips Exeter Academy alumni, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Phillips Exeter Academy alumni. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned

I have warned Hhhk about his edits. I'll have your talk on my watchlist. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I'll unwatch your page. :) --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

re:Sickles High School

Hello, D Martin!

I just reverted an edit that was made over at this article. Specifically, I removed all of the football players and coaches that were listed. I fully understand that these individual may be important to the school community, but they really do not meet the standards of long term notability that would make them important enough to be listed in an encyclopedia article. I can recommend that you check out WP:SCH#WNTI, which is a guide from the Wikischools Group on what not to include in an article on schools. Best of luck! LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding to the edits at this article. I don't have a problem with you removing the names of the specific coaches and players. you seem to be under the impression, however, that I was the one who put them there. Not being personally familiar with the school I couldn't vouch for the accuracy of any of the information presented. My edits to the article were largely in punctuation, format, grammar and, especially, clarity. (It would seem the students who had been writing/editing the article still have some to learn when it comes to basic English and composition skills.) I didn't add or remove any info. Sean Martin (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sean, Looks like I totally blew that one. I don't know where my head was. I've made that mistake before, and I thought I was being careful with the editing histories .... just not careful enough. I am very sorry for the confusion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Cheers. - Sean

Stephanie Adams at WP:COIN

Hello Sean. If you are concerned that some editors are leaving personal attacks against you in their Talk comments, you may have a valid complaint. Send me some Wikipedia email if you believe that any admin action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps relevantly, I've just deleted some silliness from right here. -- Hoary (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary. Appreciate having someone watching my back. -- Sean Martin (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"If the multiple-IP-using Adams devotee cares to log in under a username" I'd like to see that. Actually she's been logging in under one after another; see the talk page of her "goddess". Gwen may have blocked the lot. I think I'd have instead blocked all but one, but I may have missed some reasoning here, and of course any or all are welcome to protest their blocks. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing comments

Please don't edit comments like that. Why not add a new comment to dispute it? Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the point was to show he's making a blanket, unsourced statement to explain why he won't use a legitimate source for other statements. I mentioned the irony in the description for my edit -- Sean Martin (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Edited your comment at Talk:Stephanie Adams

Hello Sean. One of the many IPs at this article deleted your comment and left a legal threat. I restored your comment, minus one word, and blocked the IP for making legal threats. Do you know if there is a link to an official sockpuppet report somewhere about the subject of this article? There has now been sufficient abuse to start blocking them on sight, but I don't know how to link to a justification. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied to Ed on his Talk page here: [7]

Hello again. There has been sufficient abuse relating to this article to justify an WP:RFCU, but somebody would have to organize the information. I notice that you have some data squirreled away already. There is really no problem getting the socks blocked, whenever needed. But to file an RFCU we'd need to have a 'theory of the case' and hopefully identify a sockmaster. Do you have any ideas? Your recent sock tags seem to identify an unlikely candidate as the sockpuppetteer. Also what is the alleged abuse: is it block evasion? I notice that User:GODDESSY was blocked, but only for username, not for any substantive misbehavior. Legal threats have occurred but that is a short-term issue, usually. If you have the patience, a case might be assembled. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also raised the question of what to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the numerous (over 40) names and IPs she's used I'm not sure which you could point to as the "master" identity. Certainly a pattern of behavior can be shown:

• As I noted on your Talk page the edits are almost exclusively related to Stephanie Adams.
• The various Users post for a very short period of time (e.g., 4 edits on one day and none before or since).
• The Users all make very similar comments, sometimes almost verbatim.
• Tendency for one User to show up within hours of another and post a comment in support of the previous User.
• Etc. Etc.

Personally I'd like to see her forever banned under any guise but, again, am not sure that is possible given her willingness to switch identity. (My "squirreled away" list is largely for self-protection. I check occasionally to see if she's gone off to post more defamatory and libelous comments about me and reply to them as appropriate.)

She isn't a wiki-vandal in general. All of her edits have been related to the Stephanie Adams article specifically. So putting it under semi-protection so only named editors can make changes should help considerably. Given the activity that tends to result whenever a significant edit is made of the page, I'd support a proposal to completely protect it. Suggestions for changes could then be made on the Talk page with those that pass muster being subsequently allowed in the actual article. -- Sean Martin (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eastside Sun

Hi. You've reverted a number of my edits, but I think you may have done so under a misunderstanding. The newspaper in question, the Eastside Sun, is defunct, and my edits were not an attempt to "spam" links to the article (spam, incidentally, referes to external links and not links to Wikipedia articles) to in some way help the newspaper (which, as I said, is dead), but because the article was labelled as orphaned, so I added links to the "see also" sections of the localities that the article said the newspaper served. This is a legitimate use of "see also", which is for related subjects which are not discussed in the article proper.

Secondly, when I was adding these links, I also did some cleanup work on the article, mostly in adjusting the layout, and your edits undid this work as well. Please be careful in the future that your edits are sharply focused on what you want to undo and do not have "collateral damage".

But, in any case, these edits are legit, I have no connection to the Eastside Sun, I merely cleaned up the article some time ago when someone was posting promotional material to it. I'd appreciate it if your wouldn't continue reverting my changes. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied to "Ken" on his talk page:

Thanks for your explanation for your multiple edits on behalf of the Eastside Sun. "Spam" doesn't refer solely to links to external articles; I've come across several examples in the past where someone has posted numerous links to another Wikipedia article in an effort to make that other self-serving article prepare more legitimate than it is. Hence my mistaking your intent.

Although... the need to make multiple links to a minor article about a now-defunct newsletter in an effort to keep it alive does escape me. Perhaps there are legitimate reasons for the article to be 'orphaned'.

As for the formatting and other edits that got removed when I reversed your link additions, I tried to avoid removing anything other than the links but apparently missed in some of the articles. You may want to review the Eastside Sun article that you've worked diligently to de-orphan as, despite it's brevity, it contains conflicting information as to whether the newsletter is in fact no longer published or actively expanding into a wider area. Sean Martin (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

I noticed you were involved with editing the Stephanie Adams article several years ago and dealt with many of the sockpuppets that lived there. I recently opened a Long Term Abuse case. If you have any information regarding this user and care to comment, I feel this would be beneficial to the project. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the frustration inherent in any dealings with Stephanie Adams. Having gone thru it myself and, far more importantly, having a dear friend who went thru it I'm loath to get involved again. I do have an old list of sock puppets she used from that time, but am reluctant to re-open that can of worms publicly here. If you wish to discuss further, my contact info is on my profile page. Sean Martin (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Bobby Kent

Hi! I read your comments at Talk:Murder of Bobby Kent. There's a book called Bully (a "true crime" book that is factual but written in the style of a novel) that I used to have. I read it, and the stuff (about bad blood, about the murder being planned) is in the book. I could cite the book itself, but I need the page numbers WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)