User talk:Krohde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Krohde, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Yao Ziyuan 06:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The references in my contribution have been reformatted, apparently by an editor. They seem to be alright in the edited text but are totally wrong when the contribution was saved, e..g.'1' should be Thorson and '2' should be Rohde and not Gusev. Krohde 06:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Krohde

Please fix them. I was just putting the text in footnote format and the article in wikipedia normal form. Wikipedia articles don't normally have the format you wrote in which is more of a scholarly paper treatment format Now that you see how it works (how to link text to footnotes, etc.) make the requisite changes.
Note that if you want to leave a messages regarding the article that will be seen, you should do so on its talk page rather than your own. Just click on the discussion tab at the top of the article in the future. The only reason I found your message was because I came to tell you on your talk page that you should give the article a short introductory passage stating in simple and general terms (as much as possible given the subject matter) what the rule describes. This is a format that has wide acceptance to give context to readers and is set forth and described at WP:LEAD--Fuhghettaboutit 12:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Multiple footnotes for a single reference

Hey Krohde. I have redone the footnotes to a different style so that multiple references are possible. It works like this: anywhere you want a footnote you place the reference right in the text; if you wanted a footnote right after this sentence you would write: <ref name="Author's name">text of reference (author name page numbers etc.)</ref>

The next time you need to site the same footnote, you would simply type:<ref name="same author's name">

Close, but no cigar. For the second use of a previously defined reference, you need to use <ref name="same author's name"/>. (Note the closing "/>".) Lupo 10:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Then, under the footnotes section you simply write <references/>. What happens is that the references you wrote into the text don't appear in it, but propagate under the references section, and for ones that have multiple citations, they have letter designations for each separate place the footnote appears which look, after the footnote arrow, like this: a b.

So, for instance, the citation to your article from 1985 now appears only once in the references but has three (clickable) linking footnote designators, a b c, and is named in the hidden footnote markup, Krohde; your other articles from 1999 and 1993 that have footnotes are designated, respectively, Krohde2 and Krohde3, and should you wish to later add a footnote to the reference for Krohde2 somewhere else in the article, for example, you would simply type: <ref name="Krohde2">. I hope that's clear. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

<ref name="Krohde2"/> (closing "/>")... Lupo 10:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello and welcome aboard; it's great to see a real expert contributing! Just a minor hint: when you create an article, it's not necessary to mention "No copyright infringement". That's the assumption (alas, all too often violated) around here. If your texts are available elsewhere online, it might be a good idea to clearly state on your user page who you are (your user name is a giveaway already) and that you hold the copyright to these texts to help avoid future confusions. If the texts are not available online, even that might not be necessary: if other people cannot find the texts online, there's only a vanishingly small chance that anyone might mistakenly think your contributions were infringing someone else's copyright. Lupo 10:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedian biologists

I get the impression you are a biologist from your edits - you might like to add yourself to Category:Wikipedian biologists if you are. Just paste the code [[Category:Wikipedian biologists]] (without the colon as I used above) on your User page if you wish.

Ah, I see you have cited some of your papers in vacant niche - I'll go ahead and add you to the category if you don't mind. Just undo my edit if you don't want to be listed here.
By the way, I noticed you asked about writing about yourself in one of your edits. I'm not sure if you got a reply about that, but I would strongly advise you not to write about yourself. It's a very difficult thing to do neutrally, it's the highest form of systematic bias possible, and generally makes the writer look like they are shamelessly self-promoting. You may well deserve your own article, but there are probably thousands of similar scientists that don't have articles. There also tends to be controversy when a Wikipedian has their own article - see for example William Connolley and especially when they write about themselves (see Jimmy Wales and Talk:Jimmy Wales. I don't think it's a big deal really - we have entire species (most of them in fact) that don't have their own articles, which kind of puts things in perspective. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information. Richard001 07:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
There are some examples of biologists with their own articles - e.g. John Alcock (behavioral ecologist), Neil Campbell (scientist) etc. I hadn't heard of you, but then I haven't heard of most biologists. You may or may not be considered 'notable' enough for an article, but I would let someone else make the call and certainly avoid participating in writing about yourself.
While I'm here, thanks for your great work on ecological articles. I've been working on the area myself a bit and it's wonderful to have publishing scientists writing for the project. Feel free to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology or any of its subprojects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecology; you can also use the discussion pages here if you want to talk about anything. I look forward to reading your articles in full when I have more time. Richard001 08:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niche segregation

I've come across an unfortunate problem with the new article you wrote - there is an existing article at niche differentiation, which I understand is the same thing. Unfortunately the author of that article didn't create any redirects for the synonymous terms, so you had no way of knowing this when you created the article. They're both good articles, so it looks like they'll have to be merged into one. I took a look on Google and it seems differentiation is the most commonly used term, so I think it should be merged at that name.

You don't need to do the merge yourself, just letting you know since you are the creator and primary author of the article. I hope you continue to edit - ecological niche is in dire need of an expert such as yourself, and it's undoubtedly one of the most important topics in ecology (I've rated it as 'top' importance, and the only other article in that category is ecology itself (which also needs work of course, but not quite so badly). If you need any help getting used to editing or have any other concerns feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Richard001 11:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)