User talk:Be-Plants

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (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) 23:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edits and restore misleading content on the Chris Wright Page? The current status of the page suggests that the claim regarding electricity was completely baseless and that multiple actions have been criticized whereas the sources is only referred to one, and may not be the clearest regarding who is responsible for those actions Cannolorosa (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading about the content referring to Wright's comments on solar panels. His claim was simply wrong on numerous levels. To be honest, I'm not sure if that social media post is noteworthy enough that we should include it in the article. As for the content in the lead, good call, the sources do only point to a single action that has undermined climate policy. I just added several more to support the assertion. Be-Plants (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

it is clear that you did not read the post and the text carefully. The text says, due to your misleading revisions, says “In September 2025, Wright wrote on social media platform X that solar power cannot meet global energy demands and that covering the entire planet in solar panels would only provide 20% of demand. The statement was characterised by New Scientist as "wildly and embarrassingly wrong" as covering only 0.3% of land would be required to provide 100% of global energy demand.”Wrights post says “Even if you wrapped the entire planet in a solar panel, you would only be producing 20% of global energy. One of the biggest mistakes politicians can make is equating the ELECTRICITY with ENERGY!” the context of this post as explained in the article as well as in my edit is that solar panel panels are only able to provide electricity which is 20% of the global energy demand. I suggest next time you read articles fully instead of only reading sensationlist headlines. furthermore, in the future, you should refrain from re-adding content that is not sourced without providing the proper sources and reviewing those sources that had been previously added. This is reckless and risk spreading more disinformation on Wikipedia. Cannolorosa (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Best not to start on edit-war, so let’s move this discussion over to the Chris Wright talk page. I’m not sure why you believe that I only read headlines or want to spread misinformation. I have no bone in this debate, just looking to keep WP accurate. I am fully aware that Wright says he was referring to a 20% ceiling in what electricity can provide of the worlds energy needs. Contrary to Wright’s baffling statement, electricity is indeed energy and if you wrapped the world in solar panels, you would have plenty of energy to electrify everything. That’s not editorializing, that’s what the sources say. But let’s continue the debate over on the Chris Wright talk page discussion I created. Be-Plants (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

in case of controversial edits, you’re supposed to keep it as it was before you found it so I’m gonna revert it and I expect you to leave it Cannolorosa (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

until a consensus to change, it has been reached Cannolorosa (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

also cut it out with the reckless editing i should not have to make several “good catch”es on your edits, those weren’t good catches they were simple error errors that could’ve been avoided with proper diligence Cannolorosa (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I don't want an edit war, so won't revert again. I simply didn't expect you to object to the now well-sourced statement. I have no intention of being "reckless," I simply made a single mistake in adding the Democrats page (I'd opened that page in a different tab while researching this and accidentally copied the wrong URL). I was not the one who wrote the original sentence and I agreed with you that it did not have proper sourcing for the statement. However, I've added the sources and you reverted it. I'm not sure why? Did I do something wrong, or do you have a better solution? Be-Plants (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Let's move it over to the article talk page, but let me know what you take issue with here and what you propose. I'm sort of thinking that we're closer to agreeing here than you realize :) Be-Plants (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you see the topic on the Chris Wright talk page? I think I tagged you. Be-Plants (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)