User talk:Olle Terenius (UU)

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Olle Terenius (UU), 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:

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Profile KI[edit]

Template:Profile KI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate account?[edit]

Hi Olle. Would you please clarify if you are also using the User:Olle Terenius (SLU) account? Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm also using the SLU account. I'm still partly affiliated with SLU and use both accounts. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please place notices on the userpages of both pages, each pointing to the other, and saying how you are using them differently? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have stated that I also have the other account. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Olle. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. Your edits to date from this account appear to be focused on International Science Programme with you appear to be affiliated. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Olle Terenius (UU). We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests[edit]

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. Here in Wikipedia such disclosures must be made explicitly. Would you please disclose any connection you have with International Science Programme? After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the query. As it says on my userpage Olle Terenius (UU) under "department" I'm affiliated with ISP, but also work at other units at Uppsala University. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, and for pointing me to you disclosure of your relationship with ISP. So you have a COI for institute and related topics, as we define that in Wikipedia.

I added a tag to the ISP article's talk page, so the disclosure is done there.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant (for example, writing about themselves, or their employers, or citing their own research), is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid and conflicted editors here, and there are "black hat" paid/conflicted editors here who tend to harm Wikipedia with promotional content and will behave badly retain it).

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to follow the disclosure and peer review processes going forward when you want to work on any article where your COI is relevant, or if you wish to cite your own research or that of people you know? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance concerning how to write articles with COI. I will use these guidelines in the future. Note that most of the edits I perform, are related to research directly although this specific article was a response to a "red-link request" posted already in 2011 [1]. Best regards Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opioid induced endocrinopathy: teaching and article development[edit]

Greetings, Olle Terenius and Lenka Katila (UU). On my talk page, Olle said: I didn't find another place for discussions of your edits, so I write here. I teach PhD students in medicine at Uppsala University in how to contribute to Wikipedia in a scholarly manner. One of the students, Lenka Katila (UU), has tried to make an entry concerning adverse effects of opioid treatment. In the article https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Opioid#Adverse_effects it says "As of 2013, the effect of low-dose or acute opioid use on the endocrine system is unclear" and she wanted to up-date this information, but as I interpret from your edit did not meet the secondary sources criteria. She has therefore instead created an article on its own, that is citing secondary sources only, which to me seems like a good alternative https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Opioid_induced_endocrinopathy. Please give me your opinion on the two options: including this part in the Opioid article or creating the https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Opioid_induced_endocrinopathy article. --Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally reverted this content by Lenka because it used primary research and had WP:MEDMOS issues. Since the article on OIE is a stub and orphan, I recognize there will be further development, which I will follow but not likely participate, as it is outside my expertise and interests. But Olle mentions a valuable role of guiding UU doctoral students to participate on Wikipedia. For this role, I am notifying Bluerasberry, who has much greater experience in helping instructors and students than I do. Thanks for the feedback, and am following further discussions here on this page. --Zefr (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Olle Terenius (UU) and Zefr: Thanks Zefr and hello Olle.

The best practice for medical articles is to use a citation after every sentence and also make sure that the source you are citing meets Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).

Since you are an instructor for a class, I highly recommend that you go through the instructor orientation that we have available and also offer the online training for your students. If you use the "programs and events dashboard" then you can automatically generate a report of what all the students do and the audience who reads their content. Check it out at outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org. Especially note the training, including the training for an instructor and the medical training for student editors. Here is an example of a class report that this interface generates and that many instructors like.

If anyone wants feedback on their contributions either they can request it individually, or, if you use the dashboard, you can request it for your entire class at WP:WikiProject Medicine. This might seem like a lot but I hope that even for first time use it should only take 30 minutes to setup and hopefully 1 click per student to register. If I can assist further then ping me.

Lastly, maybe you know, but our international conference is in Stockholm this August. Join if you can - we always have a medical meetup. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please support the Sustainability Initiative![edit]

Hi Olle Terenius (UU), as a member of WikiProject Climate Change, I would like to invite you to support the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative by adding your name to the list of supporters. Thank you, EMsmile (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks![edit]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the edit-a-thon on SDGs in September 2020[edit]

Hi,

I am EMsmile, and I am a part of a group of people wishing to improve SDG-related articles on Wikipedia. We are organising this online SDG edit-a-thon during Global Goals Week, 18-26 September 2020. Please take part in it! If you have any questions about this work, please feel free to ask your question on the event's talk page here. The event page itself is here. EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the online edit-a-thon on climate change topics in November 2020[edit]

Hi,

I am EMsmile, and I am a part of a group of people wishing to improve climate change-related articles on Wikipedia. We are organising the "Wiki4Climate" online edit-a-thon from 24 November to 1 December 2020. Please take part by registering here. This event is organised by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) and Future Climate for Africa (FCFA). If you have any questions about this event, please feel free to ask your question on the event's talk page here. Please also join us in the event's Slack channel for easier communication and to make this into a collaborative effort. To join the Slack channel, please click here.

We also recommend this new guide to you: Guide: How to contribute climate change information to Wikipedia (Baker, E., McNamara, L., Mackay, B., and Vincent, K. (2020). How to contribute climate change information to Wikipedia: A guide for researchers, practitioners and communicators. Cape Town: Climate and Development Knowledge Network and Future Climate for Africa). EMsmile (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Students might like “Did you know”[edit]

Hello again Olle,

So as not to miss the deadline I nominated the 3 eligible articles written or expanded by your students for the “did you know …” section of the Main Page (on the left if you scroll down a little). The nominations are at

Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Spain

Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Puerto Rico

Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Poland

I left a few notes on the students’ talk pages but presumably you have them beavering away on something else by now. I wonder if they would like to take over the above nominations. That would save having to review 3 other DYK nominations in return (QPQ in Wikipedia jargon) because new editors get 5 free QPQ whereas I have already used my free allowance. I don’t think that would take them more than an hour total (a few minutes over several days to log in and fix whatever the reviewer pointed out) per article. And if they found they had done more than an hour they could contact me to help out.

Advantages for the students could include:

1) Thinking of a “hook” to attract readers.

2) Adding a few more words to their LinkedIn profiles such as “got our article linked from the Wikipedia main page”.

3) The chance of a quotable compliment from the DYK reviewer.

If you think suitable perhaps you could mention this to them. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]