User talk:MrOllie

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Vielen Dank!

Edits Removed & Recommended Sources

Hello Mrollie, just returning the message and I won't be editing pages how I was which is good to know as I had received some incorrect information, can you point me in the right direction for proper Wikipedia editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmoa (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Privacy Paradox

Hi MrOllie, thanks for your point regarding too many self-citations to the article on the privacy paradox. I apologize and want to state that this wasn't my intention. So far, the paragraph was outdated and one-sided; for example, offering the perspective of the privacy calculus I believe is crucial for a better understanding. So if you may, I will now reintegrate my original changes, while citing only two of my own articles, which are necessary for the arguments. Please get back to me with further feedback you should have. Fyi, I've written the privacy paradox page for the German wikipedia, which was received favorably. Thank you! TobiasDienlin (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised to see that you deleted also the two citations I kept in the article. I understand that you want to prevent excessive self-citations, and I honestly agree. But surely it's by definition a grey zone, and trying to prevent self-citations should not come at the cost of clear reductions in quality? Also, I feel treated a bit unfairly: How can I possibly falsify the accusations? I deliberately use my actual name here to be transparent. I cannot imagine you would have deleted those two citations if you hadn't known my name? I will now reintegrate the two citations, because they are a crucial empirical support for the points made. They belong to the most cited papers on the privacy paradox and the privacy calculus (Link Google Scholar ; Link to Google Scholar), and including them surely improves the article. But I'm happy to consult others and accept if they don't agree with my perspective, or please provide quality or content-related reasons for the removal of the links, and I'm very happy and open to discuss them. Thank you! TobiasDienlin (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

TobiasDienlin, Even if you hadn't used your own name, I think it would have been obvious given the number and type of self cites. It is not appropriate to edit war in self citations, especially not to tilt the article toward your own views on the subject. This is exactly why we have WP:COI guidelines that say you should not be making these edits yourself. MrOllie (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that my first edits included too many self-citations. Overall, and if I've counted correctly, I've added 14 citations, and 5 were from articles I coauthored. So I agree that this can be considered excessive, and I apologize. However, please remember that by now I've removed 3 self-citations, and my final edits contain only 2 self-citations, both of which are I believe central to the field. I have read the COI guidelines regarding self-citations, which are as follows: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." I'm of the position that adding two self-citations out of 11 citations overall shouldn't be considered excessive. Also, it is certainly true that I'm now adding the perspective that the privacy paradox phenomenon is debated; however, this is nothing to criticize. Instead, it is making the article more balanced overall, given that many (and in my perception the majority of) scholars indeed question the existence of the privacy paradox (see Gerber et al., 2018), a position which was completely absent so far. I'm convinced that my perspective is legitimate and fair, but it seems further editing or discussions with you will not be fruitful. As suggested by the guidelines, I'll now put my thoughts in the articles' talk page, and will see what others think. I folks agree with you, then I'm of course happy to change my opinion here. Thank you. TobiasDienlin (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, For your information, I've now addressed the case in the article's talk page. Please let me know if that's okay or the way it should be done. I'm new and still learning how to use wikipedia correctly, trying to understand norms and behaviors. Thank you :) TobiasDienlin (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Mention for the Risk of spreading WAS via Space Colonization

Greetings MrOllie,

I would like to reach an agreement on this revert.

The reason for the revert was "WP:UNDUE weight on fringe view".

If "fringe view" refers to the concern for suffering of non-human animals in wild nature (WAS) in general, then I don’t think the reason applies. One reason is that WAS has been recognized to the extent that at least two charities - Wild Animal Initiative and Animal Ethics - are fully dedicated to the problem of WAS. (Wild Animal Initiative is on the Top Charities list of Animal Charity Evaluators.) Then, several other organizations (including the Center on Long-Term Risk, Sentience Institute, 80,000 Hours, Rethink Priorities, the Centre for Effective Altruism, Sentience Politics, the Center for Reducing Suffering, and the Organisation for the Prevention of Intense Suffering) have dedicated some amount of their work to the problem. And several authors and academics have published on the topic.

Another reason for not rejecting WAS as a “fringe view” is that it can be argued that WAS is just an extension of the established and widely recognized field of animal welfare.

If "fringe view" refers more specifically to spreading WAS beyond Earth, then, as I cited in the reverted sentence, the risk has been discussed both in academic papers and in research articles. One can also independently argue that if WAS and space colonization are legitimate topics warranting their own Wikipedia articles, then the risk of Earth-originated extraterrestrial WAS is justified to have at least a mention in the space colonization article.

Based on the above reasons, my current view is that at least a brief mention of the risk of spreading WAS beyond Earth is justified.

The only counter-argument for adding the mention that I can think of is that the risk of (Earth-originated) extraterrestrial WAS may sound like a science fiction. But so arguably is space colonization, which has an extensive article nonetheless. And if colonizing other planets is discussed as a future prospect, then, one can argue, the risk of extraterrestrial WAS is similarly real.

What do you think?

ObjectiveSubjectivity (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

References

I think you should be bringing this up at the article talk page, not my user talk. Other editors will doubtless wish to weigh in. - MrOllie (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

MP3 player

Why was my edit on MP3 player reverted? There is nothing advertizing about it whatsoever. It is a study that gives the main manufacturers of these products. It is not backed by nor supportive of any specific company or brand. I therefore do not understand the reason why this was reverted. --Gammbow (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't name drop particular companies, and we don't use press releases as sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Then how can we add this vital information to the article? See a article like Personal computer or Smartphone have sections that show sales/market share of manufacturers of those markets. Somehow this MP3 player should have this too. --Gammbow (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

If the only source is a press release, it isn't vital information. - MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Dictation machine

If you think the pictures are advertizing then how about keeping the images as examples (of dictation devices) but without mentioning the brands (Olympus and iRiver) in the caption? That should be neutral and totally legal. --Gammbow (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

They don't illustrate anything in the article in any meaningful way. Wikipedia isn't a product catalog, we don't need branded photos of things. - MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Superjail!

Care to create a category on Wikipedia after Superjail!? --73.6.75.134 (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Self cite?

Hi MrOllie. I refer to your edit here: [1]. I am assuming good faith. Can you please explain in a bit more detail what the issue was with all three of these sources? I'm not seeing a problem. All three sources passed through review at both GA and FAC. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

They were part of a pattern of self citation by near SPA User:Macdorman - MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear editor Mr. Ollie,

I want to express my appreciation for your messages addressing the three topics raised. I am a new "editor" and have been busy as you have noted. Please know that nothing edited has been with an intent of bad faith or personal gain. I cite research which is viewed important by peers and sometimes I have been a contributor. Most often, these peer-reviewed scientific published articles have been leading ones on the topic and add richness, more complete information on a topic. Too much pertinent information is not clutter or harmful. Of course, I do realize you are not saying they are. I will remain cognizant of your concern as I move forward. Thank you again for your vigilance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castinglight (talk • contribs)

We do have guidelines such as WP:COI, WP:MEDCOI for a reason - while the occasional self cite from an expert editor is allowed, we should not see the same name over and over in your edit history. - MrOllie (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, appreciate your comments but as an expert (not self-proclaimed) in the fields of medicine and law, is ones work not to be cited just for purposes of conforming to a rule? I am pleased to cite all pertinent work by others as well without being excessive but citing the most important contributions in my opinion. I am pleased to entertain any work you may wish to request I perform for Wikipedia. Thank youCastinglight (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)