User talk:Linguist J

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you 70.111.246.19? Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 20:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (answered 'yes' on Veinor's talk page)

Linguist_J, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for registering for an account. I believe it will greatly help the discussion about the external linking of websites. I have reverted your edits to my original comment on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#torquewrenches_and_two_linguistics-related_websites page. I invite to reply to my original comment below my comment using the format discussed on this page: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. Please avoid deleting and editing comments made by others. For the record, I have no interest in sullying the reputation of your website. It was linked inappropriately (apparently by another user.) By placing a record of this on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam page, I was not implying that the site is spam itself, but that it was being linked inappropriately in a spam-like fashion. By posting this activity there, it allowed other editors to investigate the situation. Information about properly adding external links can be found here: Wikipedia:External_links. Thanks for your contributions. Nposs 21:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up, by adding my comments (which included lingforum) to the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam page, I was not implying that the site itself was spam. I encourage you to read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam page which describes the purpose of that discussion forum. Someone had engaged in a form of "link spam" - adding the same websites to multiple articles in order to boost the visibility of the site in search engine results. Lingforum was included in their links. I don't believe they intended harm to the website or its reputation. The links that they added violated the guidelines of external linking on Wikipedia, described here: Wikipedia:External_links and were removed. My goal was to prevent this link spam activity - which degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. I wish you only the best in your future work with your websites. Nposs 22:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Linking data:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Blocked for making legal threat

I have blocked you indefinitely for violating Wikipedia:No legal threats. -- Donald Albury 00:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Unblock request

{moved from top of page to bottom per talk page custom)

Donald Alburry,

Can you please unblock my account? I will say one last thing, and then will never come back again. I believe hat it is my right to say that last thing in response to the claims of A.B., which I believe are unwarranted. I promise not to make any legal threats!

Sincerely, Jane


You can post to this, your user talk page, while you are blocked. I will unblock you now, as you have promised to not issue legal threats again. -- Donald Albury 19:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Donald Alburry, {moved from top of page to bottom per talk page custom)

I wrote a message for you below; can you please read it?


Donald Alburry, You said that you would unblock me now, but I still cannot edit anything. Is that because my IP is blocked or because the unblock does not take place immediately? As I said, I wanted to reply to A.B. on the wikiproject spam page. Thanks!

[edit] Second block

I have blocked you again for threatening to 'take legal action'. If you ever want to edit Wikipedia, you need to become familiar with our policies and guidelines. In your particular case, you read to read Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam. You also need to understand that Wikipedia does not exist to help you promote your web sites. While sites of marginal utility may be tolerated when linked from one or two articles, an attempt to link to any web site from multiple articles is regarded as 'spam'. As has been explained, forums are not acceptable as links. Your appliedlinguistics site is 'commercial', carrying ads, and not providing any utility to articles (we don't need a link to a site that just links to linguistics programs at schools). -- Donald Albury 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Note to other editors: (moved to the bottom of the page per custom) On page for phonetics, under the name "comparative phonetics" there is a link to forum site; so what is that if forum sites are not allowed to be linked to? Just like that our users must have linked to us, too... But again, the presence of that link there is a contradiction.

Good point. It can seem unfair when it appears that some links are allowed while others are left intact. I encourage you to read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#Common_spammer_strawmen. The presence of some links that violate WP:EL cannot justify the inclusion of others. (P.S. The general format of talk pages is to post the most recent discussions at the bottom rather than at the top.) Nposs 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Great point... I am not already for inclusion of LingForum: The fact that forums are already not allowed on Wiki is enough to show that it would be wrong to link to LingForum (And I haven't ever linked to LingForum). What I am opposing is your giving the image that the site is a spam site (together with LingForum). As I said earlier, I have myself removed two links to appliedling. from the linguistics and applied linguistics sites. And I really dont have any more time to deal with this; I will let other people associated with the site know about this. And if necessary, as we said, we would take legal steps, but this is not a threat to you. Hope you understand... Believe me, I would also like to monitor and delete the links to LingForum and Applied Ling. from now on. Just because I dont want it to be associated with any other spam sites like the torque site and other normal sites... A.B. gave some links, but those seemed to use university IPs. That just proves my point, not disproves it. Those IPs are used by several people, and of course link to other sites too; that does not mean that there is one spammer associated with us who spams all those sites. Or it does not mean that any of those sites belong to us. I request that this misunderstanding be corrected; that's all we want. We also prefer Wikipedia not to link to us since one site is not yet ready and the other site is a forum site. Hope you understand this, Nposs. And if you could remove the appliedling's name in the applied ling talk page, we would be more than glad, and I (and other people associated with the sites) will periodically check the applied ling. page and linguistics page so that we can remove any links put there to our sites. Thanks...


Dear Donald Alburry,

Our and Linguist_J's whole point is that we agree with the removal. And we have NOT put the links. She said several times that she has removed some links to the appliedling. site herself, and will, again, remove any links if she sees any - no matter who puts them.

There are two points she wants to make: One is that it is not right to call those sites spam since one is a big contribution to the field (LingForum), and the other (applied ling) is not yet ready, and will be another big contribution. The other is that there is a comment (related to increasing PR) left on behalf of us, but not by us.

I am asking you: Who would equalize themselves by saying "hey, we left this link because we want to increase our PR"? This is, then, clearly something made on purpose against the appliedling. site. By whom? We do not say it is Nposs; most probably Nposs has nothing to do with that, and I personally believe that the fake commenter is someone who is not even associated with Wikipedia.

And the applied linguistics site is also NOT commercial; the site is almost equal to a parked site, which will change when it is finalized. But the thing is that we do not want any links from Wikipedia even when the site is totally ready since we do not want to be associated with any spamming or any other spam sites that steal our content.

We do understand the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but thanks for the nice reminder and the nice comments. I believe that, by now, you understand that we do not have anything to do with any spamming or any other such activity; we are indeed victims of those activities ourselves. Here we are1 06:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Information on LingForum.Com and AppliedLinguistics.Org

To whoever interested in the two sites, to see what the sites actually look like and to participate in the ongoing discussions, visit us at

To reach me, contact the admin Jane! Linguist J 02:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lingforum.com is a top-notch discussion site linked by many of the top linguistics websites from all over the world. The site has been founded by linguists/linguistics students with the sole purpose of bringing the linguistics community closer, and is totally non-commercial. LingForum is getting bigger and bigger with the contributions of linguistics fans from all over the world. Registration in LingForum.com is easy and takes no more than 5 seconds. Noone deletes your posts except for yourself (unless they are spam mesasages or not related to linguistics). Our other site, appliedlinguistics.org is still "somehow" under construction, but is now almost ready. Linguist J 03:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not remove warning-related material

You have removed warning-related material from your user or user talk page. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they were placed here because other editors have noticed an issue with your behaviour that may require improvement. They are a method of communication and user talk pages stand as a record of communication with you. If you do not believe the warning was valid or have a question about improving your behaviour you can respond here or visit the help desk. If your talk page is becoming long, you can archive it in accordance with the guidelines laid out here How to archive a talk page. Thank you.

Relevant edit[1]

--A. B. (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear A.B., A kind request: Can you please not revert my talk page again? If the information you keep posting on my talk page indeed belonged to this particular account, then it would maybe be better to keep it. But those accounts are "different" accounts and moreover include domains we are not even associated with. Thanks! Jane Linguist J 02:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)