User talk:Jpbond

Additions of http://.binaryoptionsnodepositbonus.net
Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory 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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

1. http://binaryoptionsnodepositbonus.net/examples-of-binary-options-trades - it is not my web site. I added because this page explains different types of binary options trades. I have not seen a better explanation anywhere else. 2. I really do not understand, how the page http://binaryoptionsnodepositbonus.net/examples-of-binary-options-trades could be considered as spam. This page only explains different types of binary options trades. I do not see it selling something. I do not understand it especially when I compare it to http://www.binary-optionsreview.com/ that is linked in the same article as the reference nr. 1. If a page with an explanation is spam, then http://www.binary-optionsreview.com/ is what? It is clearly an affiliate site where there is almost no information about binary options. Please explain. (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "binaryoptionsnodepositbonus.net" (reg:2013-01-21 ) is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Also, The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversely many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a link exists in an article doesn't prove that binaryoptionsnodepositbonus.net should also exist. --Hu12 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do not care if binaryoptionsnodepositbonus.net is in the article or not, it is not my web, as I said earlier. BUT, if you remove binaryoptionsnodepositbonus.net and you leave in the same article binary-optionsreview.com and binaryoptions.com that are clearly binary options affiliate sites, although I draw your attention to them, then I am sorry, but your editing is very strange. I am a binary options trader and I genuinely wanted to provide a helpful link with binary options trades explained. You removed it and you left commercial links that do not provide any useful information. Looks very strange to me and I think that I am quickly done with my will to contribute to wikipedia. (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You showed no concern for those prior to your link being removed, why now? While those probably need to go, we are talking about your addition here. The other links have nothing to do with the site you added. What's strange is adding a link to a newly created unknown site that isn't mentioned anywhere on the net and has a low value content posted by some anonymous person. Amazing you could even know of its existence, without having any connection to it. --Hu12 (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)