This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2015-007937_EN.html 49.190.106.209 (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think that link should be used for in this WP-article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not OP but it's pretty obvious what they want. Emdosis (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They want "The Commission has investigated the matter with the Spanish authorities and found no evidence of the allegations of a military geoengineering scheme for changing climate in Spain." to be mentioned in the article? Seems off-topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That gives me "We have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing." vibes, but ok. Emdosis (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It is a question to the European Parliament about some claim about Spanish meteorologists, based on one dead link and one link with a lot of text that does not seem to say anything on the subject of those meteorologists. It is just the question, without any answer. I do not see what text we could add to the article that could be ased on it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hob Gadling It's discreet, but there is an "answer in writing" link on the right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thank you. Then it is a nothingburger instead of nothing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CanonNi (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word contrails is used in place of chemtrails when comparing the two. Delete the second contrails with chemtrails 2600:1702:4CA4:56B0:B445:A4B0:A793:B2F4 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean as in the sentence "Believers in this conspiracy theory say that while normal contrails dissipate relatively quickly, contrails that linger must contain additional substances."?

If so, I think you're wrong. If you meant something else, please clarify. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]