User talk:Krohde

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Klaus Rohde holding his "Balance of Nature and Human Impact", 2013.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Klaus Rohde holding his "Balance of Nature and Human Impact", 2013.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing

Hello, Krohde. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Klaus Rohde, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate 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).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first.

The original article was written by somebody whom I have never met. He based the article on information (CV) freely available on the web. The changes I (Klaus Rohde) request are updating some links (e.g., to tree of life articles on Aspidogastrea http://tolweb.org/Aspidogastrea and Amphilinidea http://tolweb.org/Amphilinidea , which now have different web addresses, and to my blogs https://krohde.wordpress.com and https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/ ), and omitting a few that no longer exist (e.g., links to knols discontinued by Google some years ago). I also wish to delete any reference to my parents (Franz and Martha Rohde), because this is irrelevant. I also wish to update the number of my publications from 400 to 480. I previously added a link to my latest book: The Balance of Nature and Human Impact, Cambridge University Press 2013; there is no copyright infringement: the link simply leads to the Publisher's website about the book, which is freely available on the web.

Concerning your comment that the entry reads like a resume. I agree, but I have not written it. If you wish I can make some changes trying to be ‘neutral’. However, I am the person who is being discussed.

Changes to References and External links below.

Thanks, Klaus Rohde

References

Taxa named after Klaus Rohde

1. Descriptions of new genera and subfamilies: new link: https://krohde.worpress.com

2. Klaus Rohde blog https://krohde.wordpress.com

3. Klaus Rohde University blog https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/

4. Homepage at University of New England (UNE). New link http://www.une.edu.au/staff-profiles/ers/krohde\

5. Taxa named after Klaus Rohde : new link: https://krohde.wordpress.com

6.-8. : No changes

External links

Change the links to Tree of Life articles by Klaus Rohde

http://tolweb.org/Aspidogastrea

http://tolweb.org/Amphilinidea

Hi there. An edit request should be posted on the article's talk page, giving other involved editors an opportunity to express their opinions and reach a consensus on whether or not should such a change be implemented. After a consensus has been reached, or if there is no clear opposition to the proposed change, the edit request template should be posted, and an independent editor (such as myself) will decide whether the proposed change should be made. Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]