User talk:Odd Höglund (SLU)

Odd Höglund (SLU), you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Odd Höglund (SLU)! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing yourself

Dear Odd. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia. Per the WP:SELFCITE section of our conflict of interest guideline, can I please ask that you refrain from citing your own papers and linking to your own website. Edits such as [1] and [2] are not suitable and give the impression that you are promoting yourself. Thank you SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to cable tie. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. SpinningSpark 10:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked not to self-cite above. You added another self-cite four days ago which was reverted. Today you added yet another one. The whole passage was written by you clearly for the purposes of promotion, complete with external links to your website [3] in 2014. It was removed by User:Smartse in May 2015. You put it back in again [4] in May 2016. I have today removed the section entirely. Please do not ignore this warning again. Persisting with self-promotion could lead to you being blocked from editing.

Your original contribution gave the impression that these devices were in use for human surgery at a time when you were still conducting animal trials. There is still no independent sources assessing the product or showing that it is in general use. On medical matters we require careful sourcing for claims (see WP:MEDRS). Please respect the guidelines of this site. SpinningSpark 11:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You just reverted. First of all, you have a conflict of interest. Our guidelines require you to declare that conflict when you edit. You should refrain from directly editing the article, and instead make suggestions on the talk page. Secondly, you are now edit warring which is seriously disruptive. SpinningSpark 12:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, the last time I checked the guidelines, declaring the conflict on your user page was sufficient. I believe that the rule was that conflicts of interest could be disclosed on user pages OR talk pages OR edit summaries, not everywhere or all the time. I think it's important to not overstate our standard rules; this is a complicated enough place already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!

Welcome to Wikipedia and WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information; their application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! I am now on the participant list of WPMED. Odd Höglund (SLU) (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them.) WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which has a button "Cite" click on it
Then click on "Automatic" or "Manual"
For Manual: Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details, then click "Insert"
For Automatic: Paste the URL or PMID/PMC and click "Generate" and if the article is available on PubMed Central, Citoid will populate a citation which can be inserted by clicking "Insert"

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Hello, Odd Höglund (SLU). We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with.

Editing in this way is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

If you wish to continue contributing, please first consider citing other reliable secondary sources such as review articles that were written by other researchers in your field and that are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite sources for which you may have a conflict of interest, please start a new section on the article's talk page and add {{Edit COI}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I contribute to Wikipedia with my expertise, and I publish scientific texts within my area of expertise – those cannot be separated. We should instead be worried when Wikipedia users edit texts outside their area of expertise. When will there be a bot that identifies users editing texts outside their area of knowledge? Thanks. Odd Höglund (SLU) (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list of editors presumed to be editing outside their area of expertise (if any) is assumed to be more or less the same as Special:ActiveUsers. If you've heard the joke that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, or if you remember the Essjay controversy, then you'll understand why the rules and processes reject self-declared expertise as evidence that an editor actually is an expert.

The problem that Jay8g is talking about is not really about whether you're an expert. The problem is that citing only your own papers looks bad. People might start thinking that it's self-promotional, or egotistical, or arrogant. You presumably read a lot of papers. Did nobody else write anything worthwhile? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to Peter Steiner's 1993 cartoon – brilliant!

Yes, I agree, if a study shows similar results as another study, we usually cite this as “in agreement with previous studies”. I do the same on Wikipedia. The result is sometime an error message – “excessive citations”… So, there is a balance to strike.

On the topic of self-citation, I see the problem that it may look bad or be perceived as self-promotional. However, that may not necessarily mean we are doing the wrong thing; an alternative interpretation of self-citation is “this person knows this topic – I can trust the given text (and cited source)”.

In this specific case, the short story is that plenty of opinions and concerns have been expressed in media on the topic of increasing costs of veterinary care. Despite these concerns, along with calls for improved price transparency, there is a lack of compiled data on prices for different types of procedures. Limited attention has been given in scientific literature to quantifying expenses associated with veterinary care. In short, objective data is lacking! If you find that somebody else wrote something worthwhile on the topic (not opinions, objective data!), please let me know, and I will insert the citation.

Yes, we can ask a volunteer to review whether or not a suggested citation should be added, it is a good built-in function (which I was not aware of). However, if we publish a scientific paper on the topic, reviewers were involved… (please read https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/the-peer-review-process.html if you are not familiar with the process). Should we then ask somebody else, who probably knows less about the topic, for their assistance in inserting the citation? This seems like excessive administration, where the original contributor of text and citation is somewhat “under cover”; in my opinion, this is a less good option.

I appreciate the discussion – thank you! Odd Höglund (SLU) (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of citing a lot of original papers, are there any reviews that summarize them?

I don't edit much with veterinary subjects, but in human oncology, we've had a problem with people picking the one study that doesn't confirm the others, so we prefer a review article whenever possible. That gives us a peer-reviewed source in which someone says that there are multiple studies that confirm ____, and that one outlier that disagrees. This may not be possible for everything, but it's ideal when it works out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]