Forzajuve 27

January 2013

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Gambler's fallacy. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I realise that the purpose of Wikipedia is not a collection of links, it's about storing well kept, informed and reliable information. If you take the time to read the article in question you will see that it is very relevant to the page, and is infact a well thought out and intelligent piece. The article doesn't encourage anyone to bet at all and is simply describing the methodology behind the Gambler's Fallacy, which I think people may be interested in reading for a further analytical look at the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forzajuve 27 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 23 January 2013‎

It's a blog entry by a non-expert on a commercial sports betting site, and as such does not meet WP:RS. You added it as a third source for the already strongly-sourced sentence "Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman first proposed that the gambler's fallacy is a cognitive bias produced by a psychological heuristic...", but your blog doesn't mention any of this. We don't add references because "people may be interested", we add references to source specific statements. A rough summary of the Gambler's fallacy by a blogger (who may well have cribbed it from Wikipedia in the first place) is of no use as a source. --McGeddon (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly I added it into an incorrect section, but I feel that it does have weight to belong there on the page, but if you feel that it is well sourced enough then I take your point. However I certainly feel that Poisson Distribution belongs there as it is a very accurate and detailed description that expands further on a basic definition. The article on Arbitrage betting I also feel belongs on the Arbitrage page and in fact I noticed that another user specifically mentions Pinnacle Sports accepting Arbitrage betting in the article.

Also apologies for repeating this message on your talk page but wasn't sure you would be seeing this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forzajuve 27 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 January 2013‎

If you're trying to add a sports-betting blog site as a useful "further reading" external link to any article, then this fails WP:LINKSTOAVOID #5 ("Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.") and #11 ("Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority."). There are many more appropriate resources for Poisson distribution or the gambler's fallacy. --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand.