User talk:Be-Plants

Welcome!

Hi Be-Plants! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Be-Plants, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^Read! Talk! 05:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Robert L. Bradley Jr.

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Robert L. Bradley Jr., may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Appreciate your contributions! Love to see new editors. Czarking0 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and BLPs

You asked about the prohibition on blogs as a source for BLPS: see WP:BLPSPS. See also WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPSOURCES. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thank you. Should I remove the Skeptical Science citation from the Roger A. Pielke Jr. page, or should it stay considering it's a reliable source for climate change (self-published by experts) and I added other sources backing up similar assertions? Be-Plants (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are questionable sources for statements about living people, and opinions would vary as to whether they are usable with care or simply unusable. Although "subject experts" contribute to them, the experts are largely in physical climate science rather than the politics and economics of climate change, which is Pielke Jr's area, so their expertise is in a neighbouring field rather than directly relevant. Beyond this many of the contributors, and particularly the founders, lack even this expertise: Skeptical Science was founded by a cartoonist, while DeSmog was apparently founded by a public relations expert. This is problematic because the group blog sructure mean that it's not always clear who is behind a particular statement, particularly for things like the databases which both sites include. My own view is that these sources might be usable "with attribution", that is they can only be used as the opinion of the sources, who should be directly identified, e.g. by a wikilink, in the text at each use, and not as statements of fact. Some other editors might take a harder line, and just delete them citing the policies above. In general it's best to use the strongest sources you can find for any statement, rather than adding a larger number of more questionable sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Edit summary

I see you rarely use edit summaries. Please use them as they really help other editors. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will make sure to do so in the future. Why did you revert my edit to Climate Change Denial? I simply removed a redundant sentence. Be-Plants (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a sourced sentence removed without explaination. Had you added a clear edit summary as to why that sentence was removed, I would've looked closer at the edit before reverting. Masterhatch (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking closer at it now, I see it is redundant. I will self revert. Masterhatch (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry for the confusion. I'll make sure to add summaries in the future. Be-Plants (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]