Difference between revisions of "User talk:Yuri Zephyros"
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
I am bemused by your single-minded hostility to the [[Document:Chemtrails - Proof and Purpose|Chemtrails - Proof and Purpose]] article. I have re-read it and, whilst I agree that a number of unreferenced assertions are open to question, I do not accept your judgement of it as "Rubbish". For the reason already stated and which seems to have escaped you, neither do I accept your accusation of blatant falsehood in its first paragraph. Intelligent people are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about ''"rubbish"'' and ''"blatant falsehood"''. | I am bemused by your single-minded hostility to the [[Document:Chemtrails - Proof and Purpose|Chemtrails - Proof and Purpose]] article. I have re-read it and, whilst I agree that a number of unreferenced assertions are open to question, I do not accept your judgement of it as "Rubbish". For the reason already stated and which seems to have escaped you, neither do I accept your accusation of blatant falsehood in its first paragraph. Intelligent people are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about ''"rubbish"'' and ''"blatant falsehood"''. | ||
| − | + | :Discussion of the article should continue in the Discussion space of the article. | |
| + | :I don't intend to confine myself only to "Chemtrails - Proof and Purpose". There is the "Owning the Weather by 2025" article to attend to as well. | ||
| + | :It was you who suggested that I "propose it for deletion as rubbish". Being a bit new here I took that to be the type of language to use, so I used it. I apologise it it's a bit strong. --[[User:Yuri Zephyros|Yuri Zephyros]] ([[User talk:Yuri Zephyros|talk]]) 11:25, 19 August 2014 (IST) | ||
Can I suggest that you re-read the Getting-Started pages again - especially [[WikiSpooks:Read This First#Core_principles|item 6 here]]. It would also be helpful to understand why you seek involvement with the Wikispooks project. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 14:26, 18 August 2014 (IST) | Can I suggest that you re-read the Getting-Started pages again - especially [[WikiSpooks:Read This First#Core_principles|item 6 here]]. It would also be helpful to understand why you seek involvement with the Wikispooks project. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 14:26, 18 August 2014 (IST) | ||
| + | :Re Item 6 - That there exists an official explanation does not automatically mean that it is misleading in any way. We could include the FAA Fact Sheet in WikiSpooks here and give it a good hard and critical examination. Actually it does have faults; I am not entirely happy with it. It's too "dumbed down" in some parts. NASA, hey; what do they know? | ||
| + | :I completely agree that every official narrative should be closely scrutinised for disinformation and misleading statements. I also hold that activists should not misrepresent evidence based and factually correct material from official sources for the purpose of advancing misinformation without being called to account on it. --[[User:Yuri Zephyros|Yuri Zephyros]] ([[User talk:Yuri Zephyros|talk]]) 11:25, 19 August 2014 (IST) | ||
Revision as of 10:25, 19 August 2014
Welcome to Wikispooks!
We're glad you came. There's lots to do.
The Community portal is probably the best place to start for new users. To add a Wikispooks search facility to your browser, go here. If you've got a topic you're itching to write about, just dive in. If you're not sure where to start, you can introduce yourself by editing either this page or your user page. Peter P (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2014 (IST)
Thanks for the Welcome
My special interest is Chemtrails, and I will be focusing on misinformation and disinformation about this subject. --Yuri Zephyros (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2014 (IST)
Please explain why you seek involvement with the Wikispooks project
I am bemused by your single-minded hostility to the Chemtrails - Proof and Purpose article. I have re-read it and, whilst I agree that a number of unreferenced assertions are open to question, I do not accept your judgement of it as "Rubbish". For the reason already stated and which seems to have escaped you, neither do I accept your accusation of blatant falsehood in its first paragraph. Intelligent people are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about "rubbish" and "blatant falsehood".
- Discussion of the article should continue in the Discussion space of the article.
- I don't intend to confine myself only to "Chemtrails - Proof and Purpose". There is the "Owning the Weather by 2025" article to attend to as well.
- It was you who suggested that I "propose it for deletion as rubbish". Being a bit new here I took that to be the type of language to use, so I used it. I apologise it it's a bit strong. --Yuri Zephyros (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2014 (IST)
Can I suggest that you re-read the Getting-Started pages again - especially item 6 here. It would also be helpful to understand why you seek involvement with the Wikispooks project. --Peter P (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2014 (IST)
- Re Item 6 - That there exists an official explanation does not automatically mean that it is misleading in any way. We could include the FAA Fact Sheet in WikiSpooks here and give it a good hard and critical examination. Actually it does have faults; I am not entirely happy with it. It's too "dumbed down" in some parts. NASA, hey; what do they know?
- I completely agree that every official narrative should be closely scrutinised for disinformation and misleading statements. I also hold that activists should not misrepresent evidence based and factually correct material from official sources for the purpose of advancing misinformation without being called to account on it. --Yuri Zephyros (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2014 (IST)
