User talk:Mopolo

External links reply
G'day. Firstly, thankyou for not reverting my removal of them. Discussion is always helpful.

I removed the links because they fall under the definition of spam under Wikipedia content guidelines. Specifically, they are "external links to a commercial website", "public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual."

Further, they come under what Wikipedia is not. Namely, a repository of links. You concede that you are just "trying to let other traders like myself know where my website is," which comes both under both of the above definitions.

The guideline on this page again says that links to blogs "should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself." That same guideline, however, proposes that as the operator of the site, you can perhaps ask the neutral editors on the talk page of Macquarie Bank (or other companies) whether they think the links should be added.

I hope I've explained my actions well. Once again, thankyou for your civility.

Cheers, Jpe|ob 08:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jpeob,


 * Thanks for your reply. My goal isn't to infuriate anyone or to step on anyone's toes. That's why I would like to discuss the issue.


 * I've been busy reading up on the links you provided as well as this page (and its many interesting perspectives and discussions): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam


 * You have explained your actions well and I understand your position. I have a spam problem on my website with bots trying to post up links to sites with drugs and porn. Thankfully I have a spam filter.


 * Before I ask other Neutral editors, i would like to continue my case. I understand this is a thin line to walk upon but I feel strongly that with the sharemarket, people should be well-informed. To do that users need to see the website. Yes I did say that "I'm just trying to let other traders like myself know where my website is." If I was a sharetrader or investor - and reading up Wikipedia I would love to find anything and every useful resource available on the same page. I would know that they are useful because they have had all their spam edited out (like what we are trying to discuss now).


 * Yes the guideline does say that, blogs "should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself." What could be discussed is the word "generally". I noted that "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks." could be linked to. I would classify my link that I placed in a few company pages to be "relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article."


 * I think perhaps you may have seen my website as a plain and simple blog with simple biased editorial-style opinions. I may have chosen to link to the wrong page. For example, I chose to link to an index page with all my posts about Telstra. That index includes all my "News" posts about what the heavyweight brokers know and think about these companies. I also post news articles on which companies performed the best and worst for that week. Traders would love to know more about companies - whether or not they have historically been the best performing for a certain week or worst performing and what the big players think. And because of that I think my website - or at least parts of it are meaningful and relevant content. Please advise me what you think.


 * Thank-you for listening and taking the time with this issue.
 * Mopolo|Mopolo 05:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, allowing people to become more informed about about the stockmarket is beneficial to society.

I just don't think randomly adding an external link in an article is within our policy guidelines.

The problem is that even if you did add such information into the body of an article, such information would be highly controversial, based on your own Original Research (something prohibited on Wikipedia) and thus likely to be removed or heavily edited.

See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for further thoughts in this area. The third point in that section says that "extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." The problem with original research is that it is unverifiable and likely to lead to Neutral Point Of View disputes.

I understand your wish to have people know about your site, or to be informed about the future of the stockmarket. I just don't think that - whether you add external links to article entries, or create an entire section talking of possible future developments or sharetrader strategy - wikipedia policy allows for you to publish or link to this thought on wikipedia.

Cheers, Jpe|ob 06:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)