User talk:Rspavlov

Welcome!

 * }

Structural coloration
Hallo, I'm sorry I've had to undo your evidently knowledgeable addition to Structural coloration's lead section. The point of a lead is to give an overview of the article as it is, which should be and in this case is a thoroughly-referenced and concise body of text supported by references (and images). Wikipedia articles can't rely on personal knowledge: we have to provide sources for claims made. In your case I don't doubt that you have something worth contributing, so if you have the time to look up suitable references, it would be fine to add those to the body of the article (there could be a new section for plants, perhaps). Then, if the lead needs to be modified to reflect the changed article body, we can of course update it in due course. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, It is pity you have undone all my work on Structural coloration. I have a lot of references but I am not sure that I want to rewrite all the article, only to see it all undone afterwards. Rspavlov Rspavlov (talk


 * I'm very sorry you feel upset, that is not my intention - indeed, I immediately made clear (above, and in the edit summary) that you were welcome to contribute. Your edit is not lost - it's in the history and can be reworked from there - but as it was uncited and in the lead, it was not suitable in that form. To repeat, you are welcome to identify suitable sources (citations), draft new material on the topic for the body of the article (not the lead), and we can then see about extending the lead of the article to reflect changes to the body, but in that order. You can see that adding to an introduction when the stuff that is being summarized doesn't exist isn't really right? All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, don´t worry, you are absolutely right. I am new to this type of collaboration and I expected something like that to happen. Could you help me to get it right ? I see that it is not only a matter of references but also of fundamental concepts. I believe that the scientific explanation of the phenomenon is very poor and that I can improve it a lot. -- Rspavlov (talk 08:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh good. What we need for each fundamental concept is a brief explanation, supported by refs that are sufficient to cover the explanation given. I think that with this topic, we should be able to provide both a photograph (or photomicrograph) and an explanatory diagram for each concept, most probably by drawing one ourselves - you'll see that I've in fact drawn some. I'm sorry you think this topic very poorly explained - not sure if you mean the article or the underlying science. If the former, note that it's a "Good Article"; if the latter, be aware that we can't write new science here, but must rely on what is already described in reliable (secondary) sources - we can mention primary scientific papers, but with caution to achieve balance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Dream art has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.google.es/imgres?imgurl=http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k225/coffeekev/Trouble.jpg&imgrefurl=http://kcconcepts.blogspot.com/&usg=__QOSMrAyvJRBpinEsiGjgqYft0xg=&h=452&w=600&sz=75&hl=es&start=12&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=ex6bNaTn4BSl2M:&tbnh=102&tbnw=135&prev=/images?q="kevin+coffee"&um=1&hl=es&biw=1280&bih=805&tbs=isch:1. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)