User talk:GeneralBob

Removing references

Hey

I noticed you labeling my reference links as link spams and are removing them at your whim without even contacting me about it first!

To me, link spamming is when someone simply adds an external link to an article. My articles were creating by referencing that site. If citing sources is not allowed in wikipedia, I will have to remove my contributions.

This is your website you are referencing. It is a made for Adsense site. It's spam. The information you posted can be gleaned from other noteworthy sources like investopedia and the McMillan book. The threat to remove the content just confirms my suspicions that you are here to simply promote your website. GeneralBob 15:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have no idea what is a made for adsense site. You are labeling a site a 'made for Adsense' site simply because there are adsense ads on it. For your information, Made for adsense sites are sites which have only 1 short paragraph of keywords and a whole page of adsense advertisements and are usually titled 'Top 10 widgets' or something like that. The 'noteworthy' Investopedia is more the 'made-for-adsense' site. Example, for an important topic like 'bull call spread', it has like 1 paragraph on it and the rest of the page are advertisements. Xcalibus 04:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this one: strike-price? or perhaps this one: expiration-date? or quite possibly these: moneyness, leaps, verticle spreads, etc... I also imagine that your edits on moneyness warranted a link to your site as a reference? How about strike price where you regurgitated definitions to other option related terms? GeneralBob 05:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question here is whether the link leads to a page that is useful, not whether it has advertising. Virtually every site has advertising, especially Investopedia.

I can agree to an extent. If the site is providing information that wasn't on wikipedia, then perhaps you should modify the current page so that it does. However, there are tons of sites out there that are similar to yours that provide useful content. What makes yours better than others and needing to be linked to? GeneralBob 06:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, there are many links that are only to information. Investopedia is a prime example. Another example is optionstradingtips.com. Obviously, any information elsewhere can be put in Wikipedia, since facts, per se, are not copyrightable, only the exact expression. The advantage to related links is that the articles may express the subject in a different way that will be more comprehensible to some people, or be better or different. Although Wikipedia is a good idea, the problem is that many articles are poorly written and researched, because people are editing it only in parts, and because there is no way to keep good information from being replaced by other edits. The option page is a good example. Anyone who didn't know about options would be confused by the article. Wikipedia's strength is that it may give different viewpoints, or cover things that many articles wouldn't, but related articles to topical information is still a valuable resource. - Wcspaulding

I agree that these are valid points. I feel that investopedia has become more of a trusted resource. That's likely why it's lasted on countless edits. It also explains why its on numerous wiki pages. Optiontradingtips is similar to your link, in a way. I've left that one alone as well simply because it does exactly what you mention, offers a different viewpoint that might be comprehended better. The problem, once again is deciding which sites deserve a link. I think we can agree that you can't have everyone up there as the pages become link farms. To be honest, I have a difficult time reading your site. There is too much information on some of the pages. The pages don't seem to have any organization. There's too many ad block on the pages, which makes it look spammy. If I had to choose between your site and optiontradingtips on simply visual presentation, I'd take theirs in a second. GeneralBob 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]