User talk:Great Mans Job

June 2008[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Search engine optimization. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Gwernol 00:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I do think it should be added, it is a Historical specimen. Please stop calling it inappropriate, it is appropriate for the page. Please let us discuss it for sure. There is no way that I have spammed.

More[edit]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did with Search engine optimization, you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 23:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you leave a message on a user's talk page, please leave the message at the bottom of the page. Also, please leave your signature by typing ~~~~. Finally, I have no idea what your message on my talk page means. Could you try to reword it? Gwernol 23:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have persisted in your attempt to use the Search Engine Optimization article to advertize the services your company/consultancy provides, I have blocked you indefinitely:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for spamming/advertising. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Trademark Protection}} below.

Gwernol 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Great Mans Job (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Trademark Protection

Decline reason:

"Trademark Protection" is not a reason why your block violates our blocking policy and should be lifted. See User:Sandstein/Unblock. — Sandstein 06:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I personally don't understand how to use this, I just know one thing for absolute certain, JHOCHMAN is editing SEO to benefit his case. SEO is a process, the trademark, YES trademark is for "Marketing services in the field of computers in the nature of providing marketing services for the benefit of others by compiling advertising campaigns, promotional services, and consulting for customers" I have a right to change it back, when lawyers from the USPTO approved this. Now anyone who tries to edit the original definition to dilute a trademark is in legal jeapordy. I have contacted numerous admins and they said, I could go fix this, now you Gwernal say I can't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Great Mans Job (talk • contribs)

Actually JHoechman recused himself from editing the article and asked that other admins take a look at your edits, which I was happy to do. Wikipedia asks that editors who have a conflict of interest who cannot maintain a neutral point of view refrain from editing articles they are in conflict on. Unfortunately you did not take this approach and have continued to use the article to promote your own views and company. Since you have not attempted to resolve this in any way that I can see, I have no choice but to revoke your editing privileges to prevent you from further damaging Wikipedia articles. If you are interested in making constructive contributions to articles that you do not have a conflict of interest in, you can be unblocked. Gwernol 23:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am so happy you have now admitted to looking at my edits. You have blocked a historical piece of evidence for the "First Known Use" of Search Engine Optimization. Removing it from the page is great. Thank you for that, it just shows that my business really is in direct connection to the first known use of the term. Thanks seriously thank you from the bottom of my being for that. It helps so much. I love it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It just shows all the more my business is in direct conneciton to the coining of the phrase. Now on the problem with the evolution of edits that JHOCHMAN and his pals have slowly made, manipulating the definition to better assist in his case, it just shows that the edits I have made, no longer have a conflict of interest in the Trademark. To make you better understand of what I meant by all the words I wrote to you, Anything in direct conflict with COPYRIGHT or Trademark should be deleted or changed. I am now showing you very clear that the edits I have made, were no longer in conflict. Now by you overriding them now puts WIKIPEDIA in direct legal complication with my US trademark. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Great Mans Job (talk • contribs)

What makes you think I hadn't previously looked at your edits? Please don't assume bad faith. If this is indeed "historical" then it will gain suitable media coverage and a neutral editor will be able to properly source it and add it to the article. There is no need for you to do so, as you clearly have a significant conflict of interest in this matter. Either request an unblock as outlined above, or cease editing this page. Your interpretation of trademark law is entirely incorrect, and also at odds with Wikipedia's policy. Until you understand both of these, you are not in a position to edit Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 00:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the recent edits, and simply see the quick reversions from JHOCHMAN or his pal editing what you have a problem with me about. Don't you think it is kind of funny that the only problems happen to be from JHOCHMAN's minipulating edits. Sure he has more experience than me at this, but I am only concerned about one thing. Protecting my trademark as defined: "Marketing services in the field of computers in the nature of providing marketing services for the benefit of others by compiling advertising campaigns, promotional services, and consulting for customers" Please take a look at this too.

(cur) (last) 23:26, 5 July 2008 Gwernol (Talk | contribs) m (33,341 bytes) (Reverted edits by Great Mans Job (talk) to last version by Gwernol) (undo) (cur) (last) 23:25, 5 July 2008 Great Mans Job (Talk | contribs) (34,532 bytes) (Undid revision 223815804 by Gwernol (talk)) (undo) (cur) (last) 23:16, 5 July 2008 Gwernol (Talk | contribs) m (33,341 bytes) (Reverted edits by Great Mans Job (talk) to last version by Gaius Cornelius) (undo) (cur) (last) 23:15, 5 July 2008 Great Mans Job (Talk | contribs) (34,532 bytes) (Undid revision 223662477 by CliffC (talk)) (undo) (cur) (last) 20:27, 5 July 2008 Gaius Cornelius (Talk | contribs) m (33,341 bytes) (Tidy using AWB) (undo) (cur) (last) 04:28, 5 July 2008 CliffC (Talk | contribs) (33,336 bytes) (reverting my own attempt to find a home for out-of-place and unsourced addition) (undo) (cur) (last) 03:55, 5 July 2008 CliffC (Talk | contribs) (33,855 bytes) (move consultant and service definition info out of lead to its own section) (undo) (cur) (last) 03:45, 5 July 2008 CliffC (Talk | contribs) (33,835 bytes) (more direct) (undo)

As you can see the evolution of where me and you are now talking. I have already contacted superiors in regards to this and have aproval from them to make edits. I have already sent an email showing what you have done. I don't understand wikipedia for this is the first time I have ever used it really. I don't know how to properlly chat with you on your page, you say at the bottom, yet I still don't see where exactly you are talking about. Very confusing. Let me make it very clear, immediately put me in touch with someone who will act as a "neutral editor" not someone who will get me lost in wikipedia defintions please. Why don't you act as the "Neutral Editor" I couldn't care less if I personally edit the page or not. Look at the recent edits, take in the consideration of the Trademark 77171330 and be one. You can see where the problems end, and begin with the edits that have taken place. The historical piece of evididence should be linked, people need to see the first known use of the phrase. I am just protecting my best interests please understand it is nothing against you personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Great Mans Job (talk • contribs)

I have acted as a neutral administrator and I have told you that your edits were inappropriate. You chose to ignore that advise, and as a result have been blocked. As you say, you clearly do not understand how Wikipedia works and apparently have no desire to learn the rules before inserting your own promotional information into articles. If you wish yet another admin to review your case, follow the instructions in the block notice above and place a {{unblock}} request below. Gwernol 00:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that Great Mans Job is representing their own commercial interest, rather than helping to build a neutral encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luna, instead of judging me, why don't you take in to consideration the enormity of what is taking place and become part of history! Actually never mind, you are already biased. I need a real "Neutral Party." Someone help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Great Mans Job (talk • contribs)

Please understand that people disagreeing with you is not grounds for you to accuse them of being biased. At some point, when no less than three separate uninvolved admins have told you that your edits violate our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view, you need to accept that you are the problem here, not everyone else in the world. Gwernol 15:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Great Mans Job (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Finding a Neutral Party"

Decline reason:

"Finding a Neutral Party" is not a reason why your block violates our blocking policy and should be lifted. See User:Sandstein/Unblock. — Sandstein 06:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Great Mans Job (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Disputes: Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators."

Decline reason:

there is no content dispute between you and the blocking admin --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There is no bona fide content dispute between this editor and the blocking admin, Gwernol. In any case, I feel that the block is justified because this user has been 1/ spamming links, and 2/ attempting to spin the search engine optimization article to bolster their own legal case, in contravention of the conflict of interest policy. See my report WP:COIN#Search engine optimization for further details. The user shows no interest in making encyclopedic contributions. As such, this is a disruption-only account. Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI Great Mans Job, I was not in a content dispute with you when I blocked you. Your edits are clearly vandalism under the spam clause: "Adding or continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism, or sites that have some relationship to the subject matter, but advertise or promote in the user's interest." Therefore I may revert your vandalism and block you if you persist past a final warning, which you did. Gwernol 15:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, there is a bona fide content dispute between this situation. The content I tried to revert back from you Mr. Hochman is a historical specimen. First off don't feel like you have a conflict of interest you have no case, only a lawyer who is charging you for one. Now Hochman Changed that spam message OH YES HE HAS JUST AS BIG OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THIS SO WHAT DO YOU DO WITH HIS EDITS? Especially in the speciman where the word was born. I think people have a right to see it. In fact when they read it, they will be like oh man I wish I could see it! So now yes we are clearly in a content dispute, you warned me, but I reverted it because it was a content dispute. The content I was not adding, only reverting back before HOCHMAN deleted it in an attempt to minipulate this page to better himself in court. It is no suprise he is already getting other people to do his work. I mean I have all kinds of record of this guys tempting.

LETS GET ONE THING VERY CLEAR, THIS IS NOT SPAMMING, IT IS A HISTORICAL SPECIMAN LINK OF THE FIRST KNOWN USE EVER, AND YOU BLOCKING ME GWERNOL WAS INDEED OVER CONTENT THAT SHOULD BE ADDED. ESPECIALLY THE FIRST KNOWN "SERVICE DEFINTION" OF SEO BROUGHT TO ATTENTION BY US PATENT AND TRADEMARK SERIAL NUMBER 77171330. CLIFF IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, THIS SHOULD HAVE A SECTION OF ITS OWN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SERVICE DEFINTION. THE FIRST ONE IN THE WORLD, WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH? I DON'T GET IT IF YOU WANT GREAT CONTENT WHY DO YOU INSIST ON DELETING THE BEST PARTS?

If trademark application is truly notable, somebody besides the applicant will surely find it interesting and add it to the article. Douglas Adams explained things quite well:

"It is said that his birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this." --The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Happy trails, Jehochman ^Talk 16:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search[edit]

A Google search for "Great Mans Job" + SEO turned up hits: this talk page and a comment on SEOmoz.org:

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/gambert-strikes-back-the-confidential-official-response-to-seomozs-opposition-proceeding#jtc59162

That post was in response to this article:

"Gambert Strikes Back!! The Confidential Official Response to SEOmoz's Opposition Proceeding"