User talk:Genedna

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Versa geek  03:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in this edit to ESFJ. Inappropriate links include links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that serve as advertising or promotion. Thank you. Mjquin_id (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mjquin,

With regards to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator

Please see the heading at the bottom of the page: Free online Jungian typology assessments

There are 3 tests listed, which do as the heading suggests.

http://www.personalitytest.net/cgi-bin/q.pl is a Free online Jungian typology assessment. Now please look at http://www.career-test.co.uk/test.php. See that is is also a Free online Jungian typology assessment.

There is a heading Free online Jungian typology assessments, and below are 3 sites. This career-test.co.uk/test.php is an alternative test that is different to the other 3, but is also a Jungian type test, that completely and relevantly fits into this heading and page.

I am stunned that it is deleted, as if it is some sort of irrelevant or incorrect link. Please check to see that his link is absolutely no less relevant that the 3 that exist. What is wrong with having a relevant 4th test, that is appropriate information for this page? It is a MBTI type test (ie. Free online Jungian typology assessment).

I am not going to add SPAM links or irrelevant material to any wikipedia page. Only what is beneficial and correct. Please can you see that this link is correct to be placed.

Thank you genedna
 * I appreciate your passion. But, as a new user, with no user page adding the same link to almost 30 pages. It seemed like a fairly standard case of SPAM Link insertion.  After review, and noting that all of your edits were reverted by other respected editors like User:Versageek and User:Causa sui...I am even more convinced that it was simply WP:SPAM.  I hope that you read some policies like WP:BANNER, Ads Policy; especially things like Links normally to be avoided.

If you need help, just ask. There are friendly people who can help you around every corner. Mjquin_id (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mjquin,

There is a page on this site that describes the ISTP personality. There it made sense to put a link on the ISTP wiki page to the ISTP page.

There are 16 personality types. ISTP, ENTP, ISTJ, etc. THere are separate pages to describe each person with respect to career guidence.

Surely it makes sense to have this additional reading that is relevant to the type.

It was not a case of spam at all, each link was relevant and appropriate.

There is also a wiki page about career tests!!!! How can you not add a link to a career test, when that is relevant to the page.

I am a new user, but only going to add relevant and dedicated information.

Surely new users need to add information?

Ok. I will not supply the further reading to the 16 personality types...... because this information you don't want users to access, even though it is original, informative and relevant.

However, there is still the unanswered issue of the three personalty test links on the MTBI type indicator page, and this test (career-test.co.uk/test.php), which is not a copy of the previous 3. Surely this link is relevant and should be added?

Why have any links to jungian type tests?

Surely this is a genuine and correct evidence? The site is not irrelevant or inappropriate. Surely you agree to that?

The other links I believed were totally appropriate. You don't want to add further reading links that are appropriate and relevant?

I am a biotechnologist, and understand scientific papers and references.

Again I plead a case that the link be allowed to stay please.

Regards, Vern (genedna)
 * The best place to "plead" your case is on the "Talk" pages for the articles on which you believe the article should be linked. It would also help to create a user page and maybe join the WikiProject_Psychology and discuss your ideas there.  WP:VANDALISM is such as constant problem that any editor seeing you (with no user page) add the same thing to a number of pages is going to be reverted...unless you have discussed it with the associated WikiProject (see the talk page for any article).  The general rule is Be Bold, If reverted, then discuss.  (Also, put good edit summary and sign comments with four tildes ~)  So try that route; best of luck. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and DNA Solutions was created. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Mlpearc  pull my chain   'Tribs  03:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
 * Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
 * If you would to help us improve this process, please consider