SEO 2.0 article Options

[A Horse With No Name]

Take a look here.

First question: can you weigh in on the quality and validity of this article?

Second question: do you think that Jehochman - being the first to weigh in on a G5 deletion nomination of the article - had a conflict of interest or not, being that the phrase was coined by a competitor to Hochman's own business?

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Tue 7th September 2010, 1:02pm

[thekohser]

I see that this freaky, undoubtedly under-25-years-old editor named User:Themfromspace has made it his personal mission to associate the SEO 2.0 article's author with me, thanks apparently to evidence that comes in the form of a bid on Freelancer.com.

(Of course, he linked the wrong bid on Freelancer.com, and apparently the deleting admin spelled my User name as "Thekosher" somewhere. That's investigative accuracy for you, though, on Wikipedia.)

Looks like the SEO 2.0 article was a fairly good one, given the rather light reference sources. But, as a topic at a trade conference, mentioned in one of the largest Italian daily newspapers... plus liberal coverage in New Media Age (itself having a Wikipedia article, so you know it's noteworthy)... plus ample coverage in a Polish publication that also has its own Polish Wikipedia article, I would have to tip to the side of the subject being both verifiable and notable.

If Wikipediots want you to believe that a concept having over 28,000 Google hits doesn't exist, who are we to stop them?

Which, therefore, makes Jonathan Hochman of Hochman Consultants an agent serving his own conflict of interest. That he would call for the deletion of an article about something that a competitor of his is attributed as having coined, indicates to me that he is a slimy scoundrel. He has publicly lied about me in the past, too; associating me on a client-vendor basis with the Orbitz travel group, when I had absolutely no association, other than as an ordinary customer. It took a phone call to this habitual defamer to get him to crawl back with his tail between his legs.

So, I conclude that Jonathan Hochman was overreaching his remit here, once again.

Jonathan Hochman is a serial hypocrite.

And, the SEO 2.0 article ought to be restored to Wikipedia, because I have it on good authority that the creator of that content will be paid regardless of publication status. The Freelancer work was expressly for authorship work, not publication. Deleting the content now only spites Wikipedia itself, at this point.

The agents assisting Wikipedia in suppressing this verifiable, notable content are, therefore:

* User:Themfromspace
-- "This user does not give a fuck."

* User:Jehochman
-- "Articles and pages to work on:
. . . . . Search engine optimization
. . . . . Wikipedia:Conflict of interest"

* User:Vianello
-- "This user likes to play Role-playing games."

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 7th September 2010, 2:48pm

[thekohser]

I would like to know which CheckUser is doing the check-user on this report, and I would like to know if there are any other CheckUsers who are watching the watcher.

It sounds like they'll be ready to block, ban, delete, and who knows what else, even if they would have been put in a position to have to lie about the check-user results.

If you're really certain about the connection, and it seems blatantly obvious to you, you need not wait. That's your call. --[[User talk:Deskana|(ʞɿɐʇ)]] [[User:Deskana| ɐuɐʞsǝp]] 16:54, 7 September 2010

[thekohser]

Here is Jonathan Hochman lying about it a year-and-a-half ago:

This concept has not been mentioned in any reliable sources at all... [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Even though in February 2009, the concept had actually been mentioned (if not covered in depth, in the case of the English-language sources) in:

• New Media Age (which has a Wikipedia article about it, and 92 external links from Wikipedia already)
• MediaPost (which has 429 external links from Wikipedia)
• La Stampa (which has a Wikipedia article about it, and 276 external links from Wikipedia)

Jonathan Hochman is either a liar, uninformed, or does not believe New Media Age, MediaPost, and La Stampa to be "reliable sources".

[thekohser]

When will they ban this user? He obviously has forbidden content in his User sandbox, and there is no attribution per the CC-by terms, to boot!

[thekohser]

User:Kindzmarauli says:

I can confirm that this article was created by the banned puppetmaster in question. I copied and pasted the pre-deletion content into my sandbox last night hoping to rescue it and rewrite it later using the sources he had provided in the article. The content itself seemed ok to me, quite apart from the fact it was created by a banned user. Today, I have received an accusatory e-mail full of barely supressed outrage via the Wikipedia e-mail feature from the primary account {{user|Thekohser}} regarding my attempt to rescue the article and improve it. I thought I was being helpful by rescuing his article, but since he's sending me bitchy e-mails I will just speedy my sandbox and he can forget about getting paid by his client. [[User:Kindzmarauli|Kindzmarauli]] ([[User talk:Kindzmarauli|talk]]) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What User:Thekohser actually e-mailed to User:Kindzmarauli:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kindzmarauli/sandbox

The content in your User sandbox page is not attributed to anyone. Where did you obtain that content, what do you intend to do with it, and do you intend to properly attribute it according to the free license terms found on Wikipedia?

Kindly,

Gregory Kohs

[Jon Awbrey]

User:Kindzmarauli says:

I can confirm that this article was created by the banned puppetmaster in question. I copied and pasted the pre-deletion content into my sandbox last night hoping to rescue it and rewrite it later using the sources he had provided in the article. The content itself seemed ok to me, quite apart from the fact it was created by a banned user. Today, I have received an accusatory e-mail full of barely supressed outrage via the Wikipedia e-mail feature from the primary account {{user|Thekohser}} regarding my attempt to rescue the article and improve it. I thought I was being helpful by rescuing his article, but since he's sending me bitchy e-mails I will just speedy my sandbox and he can forget about getting paid by his client. [[User:Kindzmarauli|Kindzmarauli]] ([[User talk:Kindzmarauli|talk]]) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What User:Thekohser actually e-mailed to User:Kindzmarauli:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kindzmarauli/sandbox

The content in your User sandbox page is not attributed to anyone. Where did you obtain that content, what do you intend to do with it, and do you intend to properly attribute it according to the free license terms found on Wikipedia?

Kindly,

Gregory Kohs

You barely suppress your outrage well.

Jon

[Somey]

You barely suppress your outrage well.

They'd better be careful, or one of these days he might not suppress his outrage at all, and call one of them a "not particularly nice person" or "an evidently rather unsavory character" or something equally horrendous.