User talk:Yuri Zephyros

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)

Chemtrails - Proof and Purpose

I have personally spotted one error in this document, based on elementary high school chemistry. At the time I assumed that this was a simple case of an omitted word, rather than indicating a more deep seated lack of knowledge. It does at least prove that these documents contain mistakes (and I think we're all agreed on that one). Hence my suggestion for a formal procedure in this case. Rather than dismiss the whole article as "rubbish" (which it may be - I am no expert on this topic), could you provide a list what you consider to be its most serious mistakes, providing references to backup your claims? Robin (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2014 (IST)