Talk:Project Cumulus

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

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 22 July 2007 by reviewer Davidwr (talk · contribs).

This needs expansion edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After creating the article via the AfC process, I added some "for further reading" material. This needs some expansion and better tie-ins with related articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Guardian/BBC source edit

I've reverted an edit because it was based upon a POV not apparent in the source(s). I've expanded my previous edit to address user:Dbrodbeck concerns. However I do not echo user:Dbrodbecks opinion that the edit should be reverted because of the POV that "if there is no mention of cloud seeding, this is a non issue." The nature of the cited sources links the cloud-seeding project to new dates, one day before the incident, and preliminary environmental evidence alleged to be related to cloud seeding.

Material removed edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've also removed ~~possible vandalism~~ information that I determined to be 'inaccurate.' According to the sources, there is no evidence of any conspiracy theory beliefs in these articles and the inclusion of material blaming conspiracy theorist for the what was reported as evidence that records are missing was added without any supporting information to back it up. Therefore, I've removed it. However, a covert action by nature requires a conspiracy.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic