User talk:PauBatlleV

Welcome!
Hello, PauBatlleV, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- Nahal 09:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Spamming
Hello, I'm Viewmont Viking. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. -- VViking Talk Edits 13:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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 websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website 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.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

External links to Sealife Collection
Hi, I've checked out a few dozen of these pages on Sealife Collection that you've been linking to and they largely don't see to be very useful. Rather than linking to an external website, can you instead add some photos to the articles directly from Wikimedia Commons? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 01:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I have been adding external links to various articles. These links redirect to a living website, that is being constantly updated by users with graphic material of the species on its natural environment. It also contains other information about the species itself as well as the place and date of the sightings, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauBatlleV (talk • contribs)
 * If you have images to add, please do so via Commons and license them under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. The WMF appreciates good quality images at Commons which can be used on WP to enhance articles, but we do not allow spam links to external sites. If you need any help uploading to Commons, contact me on my UTP. Thank you. Atsme Talk 📧 19:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Atsme, I cannot add images to Commons because these images are not mine, but belong to the different people contributing to this website. The website I'm linking to, is a living website wehre its users post images and videos of marine wildlife in its environment. It does content not only photos but also other interesting information such as time and place of the sighting, some articles in this website also have information about the species and how to distingish it from similar ones (see https://sealifecollection.org/taxon/140605/octopus_vulgaris). Descriptions have been habilitated lately so I think they will grow in the next few months, as they are also done by users. From my point of view this information could be of a great interest to many wikipedia users that would like to know a bit more about the species (last sight, where to be found, etc.).
 * If there is actually useful, reliable information in a taxon page at Sealife Collection (SC), you should definitely incorporate it into the Wikipedia article and cite SC as a reference, but again, I'm not seeing much useful in the long list of links you are posting. Checking out the last few you added:
 * Scarus fuscopurpureus / https://sealifecollection.org/taxon/219132 — WP article already has an image. SC lists the same single vernacular name used on WP. A single datapoint is provided to represent its range. Species profile: "is marine".
 * Corythoichthys nigripectus / https://sealifecollection.org/taxon/217994 — WP article already has an image, and several others to choose from on Commons if you would like to improve the article. SC lists the same single vernacular name used on WP. A single datapoint is provided to represent its range. Species profile: "is marine".
 * Parascorpaena picta / https://sealifecollection.org/taxon/218062 — Looks like a vernacular name not included in WP is provided, "painted scorpionfish". I'm not doubting its validity (e.g. IUCN also uses it), but the source here is "Jim Greenfield". I was able to create an account on SC and add my own fake vernacular name to this taxon (and then delete it), so this would be an example of user-generated content which could be inappropriate for inclusion within a WP article. The SC page has some photos, but so does Commons. Range provided is a single data point. "Is marine".
 * Ophichthus polyophthalmus / https://sealifecollection.org/taxon/217584 — Provides a photo, which the article currently lacks, but Commons has one too. Range provided is a single data point.
 * Ucla xenogrammus / https://sealifecollection.org/taxon/283080 — WP article already has an image. Range provided on SC is a single data point. "Is marine".


 * If Sealife Collection does grow into a useful resource, the better option would be to link it via Wikidata automatically into the taxonbar, rather than to add it manually as an external link in every marine taxon article. Right now, it seems like you are here to promote Sealife Collection rather than to improve the Wikipedia. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Templates and link sharing
Hi, PauBatllleV - the problem appears to be your mass addition of templates such as the following:



It's wonderful that you have a large collection of u/w images, but so do hundreds of others on the internet. WP cannot possibly include links to all of them. The procedures here are much more structured than that with the goal being to provide free knowledge about all things. We provide images to accompany our articles when available and freely licensed (with rare exception). WP is not a social media site wherein we share links with or for others. As I explained above, you are welcome to upload your images to Commons, as are the other photogs on the linked site you provided. Happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 22:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, your new section and the main section were similar enough and I wanted to reply to kind-of-both-of-them so I made it a subsection. If that's a huge issue feel free to move it back.
 * It might be worth getting 's opinions on the template, since they were the one that created it. For example, what was the intended scope and use for this template? Since PauBatlleV didn't create the template it doesn't seem like they're using it solely to promote the website, but if its intended use is to point to every corresponding page, that does seem a bit excessive. Primefac (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

So... seems to be ok with everyone to link only to those pages that have a significant amount of verified information (not only photos). If other editors agree I will be back with some links once they meet what we consider "the appropiate requirements" to fit in a wikipedia article. Adding the link vautomatically via Wikidata would be a nice option I think, but to do this the page has to grow big enough. In any case, thank you all for your comments, which I think will improve my contributions and my vision about wikipedia.

July 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for running unapproved bot scripts. Under the bot policy, all automated scripts must be approved by the Bot Approvals Group to ensure that they perform safe and useful functions without stressing system resources. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've blocked you as you appear to be using a script or both to mass add links in mainspace. I don't think this is consistent with the WP:BOT policy, and you'll need to either add these manually, or get a BFRA run. See also WP:MEATBOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear administrator, I'm no tusing any bot to add the links, I'm doing it manually... so would be nice to continue adding content to some articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauBatlleV (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So you are not using a script to help you edit nearly 200 pages in a little over an hour? Primefac (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear admin, quick answer is no, I'm doing it manually. Look at my contributions you will see that usually I'm editing for 30min, 1 hour, and I stop. If I were using a bot I would have it running for one night and all the links that I have been introducing for the last 15 days (aprox) would have been pasted in one night..., the reason why I am quite fast doing it is beacause I previously prepared a excel file with all the links to wikipedia and the link to the external website in the form "* ", so I just have to make sure I put the link in the proper site of the article. Usually I spent between 10 min and 1 hour, because is almost unhuman to do it for longer. I hope this explains your concerns — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauBatlleV (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC) commenting out template to see code. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that you have been asked by multiple editors to stop what they feel is spamming of links to the Sealife Collection. I think it would be best if you had a discussion with those editors about why they think that this external link is inappropriate and potentially come to a consensus about its use (i.e. if it should be used, how often, etc).
 * In other words, I'm willing to unblock, but only if you stop mass-adding these links until a discussion has determined if they're acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I’d be fine with an unblock on those terms. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I will discuss with whoever is willing to, thank you.


 * (Ahem) I thought, when I originally created Template:SealifePhotos, that I was creating something useful, and indeed up through November last year when I and another editor were adding this to pages, I felt the articles were enhanced by linking to a biological resource site with additional images that aren't available on Wikimedia Commons.
 * If my template is being used to link to placeholder pages, I'm not happy about that, I consider it abusive, and contrary to the intent of the template. If the templated link doesn't point to anything with any actual content, it should be removed from the article. We shouldn't be using the template willy-nilly based on the mere possibility that it the link may be useful someday in the future. If the link isn't useful now, don't put it on Wikipedia! It's that simple. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)