User talk:Kimcmich

I can't believe nobody has welcomed you yet, so here goes:

Welcome!

Hello, Kimcmich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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!

I see also that you have an interest in native California plants! There are several others, including me, who share this interest. It will be great to have another enthusiast adding and editing pages.

You may want to check out the Plant WikiProject, which was established to network with other Wikipedia editors with botanical interests.

I stumbled across the Cucamonga Manroot you made. Good work, you seem to be getting the hang of things quickly! I added some pictures that I found in the Commons. If you have any questions about whatever, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. --NoahElhardt 16:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry regarding your edit to "Boquila"

Hello!

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning in removing information from this page. You said, "Links to these papers, rather than detailed summaries of the method and statistical analyses used in one particular set of experiments, are more appropriate to the entry about the species itself or as a section of the 'plant mimicry' article.", but, if by "entry", you mean "article", "Boquila" is the article about the species, because there's only one species in that genus, and I don't see how information specifically regarding Boquila would fit "Mimicry in plants". I personally found the information that you removed to be interesting and useful. Could you please clarify?

-CopperyMarrow15 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that your are intrigued, as I was, by the results presented in Gianoli et al's papers. As interesting as these results are, however, they are not established facts. Even if they were established facts, the discussion of this research already happens in the papers themselves - linking to those papers with a brief mention of their results is the proper way to include this information.

Although the mimicry research is interesting, it has not been replicated. The genus article for Boquilla should have settled facts that are broadly agreed upon by botanists. Two un-replicated papers by one group of researchers do not represent a scientific consensus about this species. The article now links to main paper while properly contextualizing the speculative nature of the results.

An article about Mimetic Polymorphism, for instance, would be the right place for in-depth discussion of this research. It could be linked from the Boquilla page, even.

I have remade these edits. If you like this research create a Mimetic Polymorphism page! Kimcmich (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I have grown as a Wikipedian since starting this discussion and now understand the importance of interpretative secondary sources, which I suppose would be necessary for the level of detail that was used on Boquila. A Google search does reveal some intriguing sources regarding mimetic polymorphism; I may look into its notability at some point. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]