User talk:Blackcats

Archive

For old talk from Feb.-Dec., 2005, see User talk:Blackcats/Archive 1

Barnstar

For being cool during an AFD discussion

I award give a Barnstar because you are (vis-a-vis Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic spectrum) apparently a cool person. --Ezeu 17:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, Cats, for the Barnstar. Much appreciated! Ombudsman 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No prob - you're welcome and you certainly deserve it! Feel free to copy and display it on your user page. Keep up the great work! Blackcats 19:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for the heads up, add me to your "call list".

Im tied up to the Islam-related articles, representing the Shi'a side, so i dont have much time over to 911, but i tried to make a Conspiracy theory guild that was deleted and also i also created List of proven conspiracies. Tell me when a vote or good argument is needed! Fight the lie! --Striver 23:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, wtf, here we go again: Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild--Striver 00:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Translating "law" to other European languages

My dearest friend, you put the AfD tag on this article and suggest it should not be removed "until debate concludes". But there is no on going debate, you didn't write a word on the talk page and I really don't know why you and Zoe think it should be deleted. Wouldn't you share your thoughts on the subject?! Velho 15:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Blackcat. I wouldn't say that I'm new around here (even if this id is just one year old)... Velho 21:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I falsely assumed that you were new to Wikipedia. I just didn't know why else you would be arguing about the AFD on the article's talk page and not on the actual AFD page. I guess maybe you just weren't farmiliar with the deletion process yet.... Blackcats 22:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Crabtree

Thanks for taking the trouble to set me straight on this- my vote has been adjusted. I do think the underlying topic is important though. Too bad we don't have an article on soldier's blogs or something along those lines. -- JJay 01:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - yeah an article about solidiers (and even others) blogging from Iraq durring the ongoing war would be a good idea. And I think there are a number of such bloggers worthy of their own article. Unfortunately though this article wasn't one of them... Blackcats 04:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Biffeche

Hi, I've done a complete rewrite with references and am requesting people who voted to have a look at the new version. Thanks. Dlyons493 Talk 16:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon

Hi, just saw your message to FuelWagon. In case you didn't know, he has been banned from Wikipedia for six months. Regards, AnnH ^(talk) 08:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

With regard to 9/11 conspiracy theories, you seem reasonable, yet we disagree as to the evidence. Can you, will you, create a short text showing why I or anyone else should believe more than President Bush and his friends are liars and incompetents? WAS 4.250 04:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am unclear what I have failed to communicate. Please ask a specific question. The best that I can guess is that you refuse to accept that Bush's behavior could be due to his incompetance rather than some planned scheme. WAS 4.250 04:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"why I or anyone else should believe more than President Bush and his friends are liars and incompetents" That does not make sense. I just want to be sure that I'm clear on what exactly your question is before I respond. Does this mean "[should you believe] that more people than just Bush and his friends are liars and incompetents" or "that Bush & Co. are more than just liars and incompetents" or that "Bush & Co. are more than incompetent and are liars"?... If you could clear up this confusion this would help me to answer. Thanks. Blackcats 04:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I just read "That's true that you shouldn't just take the site at its word, so I would invite you to look around that site for yourself and see whether or not it matches your preconcieved notions. Can you find any examples of "idle speculation" (other than the one page with the hypothetical theory)?... Blackcats 01:31, 29". - - - My problem here is motivation. I need some CLUE that it is not a waste of my time. I know all leaders are liars. All. I know everyone makes mistakes. Everyone. You, me, them. ... everyone. How are guesses without evidence about the fall of the towers useful for anything? There are a lot of things I can do with my time. I need something other than what I've read so far to convince me to spend hours. I'll spend minutes here and there on hunches and suggestions. But if you want hours, I need more than what you've supplied so far. I love TRUTH. But to me truth = logic+evidence and so far there is a lack of evidence. WAS 4.250 05:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

WAS - We're certainly in agreement with regard to the basic truth equation. Regarding evidence, I think the best first place for you to look would be to download and watch a short video clip of WTC 7 collapsing. You can do this at wtc7.net. Keep in mind that this 47 story steel framed structure was not hit by a plane or by any large pieces of the Twin Towers. Does its collapse look like a controlled demolition? Judge for yourself. Of course those 8 seconds or so of footage may not be enough to convince you, but hopefully it'll make you have more of an open mind. Also, is it not suspicious that most Americans haven't heard of this building - for all the coverage that there was of 9/11 - most Americans think only two large buildings came down taht day. Howcome the TV news only showed video of this once or twice and it was not repeated hudreds of times like the footage of the plane hitting the south Tower? There are a lot of other pieces of evidence that I could go into, but just one more for right now is the dust clouds that formed when the towers came down. Without explosives, what was the mechanism for so much concrete (all 220 floor slabs) to be pulverized into fine powder? More discussion and photos of this here (analysis) and here (photos). And one more point for you to consider - if all the analysis like that at 911research.wtc7.net is without merit and has no good evidence to support it, then why would a respected professor like Steven E. Jones not only find it compelling (and compelling enough for his paper to be published in a peer-reviewed journal), but why would he be willing to stake his entire reputation on it? I look forward to continuing this conversation with you. Thanks again for writing. Blackcats 05:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw your comment at the 9-11 "wild guesses" article (smile) and responded "What I have read is different than what you have read. But the points you bring up are exactly the right points that matter, so the issue is the evidence for exactly the points you mention. Let's talk further at your talk page." I'm too tired to even read your above comment, but I'm really liking this conversation. I'll get back to you tomorrow. Cheers. WAS 4.250 07:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the 9-11 conspiracy article talk page where I responded "What I have read is different than what you have read. But the points you bring up are exactly the right points that matter, so the issue is the evidence for exactly the points you mention. Let's talk further at your talk page.": the key is the evidence behind those statements and the credibility of that evidence. If you care to go into that we can.WAS 4.250 18:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the comment on this page I was too tired to even read:

1. I don't care about the WTC 7 collapsing; I only care about the two that were hit by planes. Maybe WT7 was deliberatly destroyed to keep a secret that would have been revealed; or maybe it was an ammo depot; with the twin towers falling down all around it and on it anything is possible. Someone panicing and pushing a fail-safe button that destroys WTC 7 (or some such scenerio) doesn't prove the twin towers falling was also caused with planted explosives.
2. You ask "what was the mechanism for so much concrete (all 220 floor slabs) to be pulverized into fine powder?" It wasn't ALL turned into dust, most of it was carted away in chunks. The energy from all that weight falling all that distance is sufficient energy to create the dust that was created.
3. You say "if all the analysis like that at 911research.wtc7.net is without merit and has no good evidence to support it, then why would a respected professor like Steven E. Jones not only find it compelling (and compelling enough for his paper to be published in a peer-reviewed journal), but why would he be willing to stake his entire reputation on it?" He concludes that his hypothosis "ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated." He doesn't stake his career on it being right. He is instead embarking on a career that pays FAR better than physics: the book and lecture circuit. I don't say it has no merit, I say the hypothosis and the dats presented are to me less than compelling. I have an open mind, but I would not spend MY money investigating this hypososis. On the other hand, if publisising and talking about this hypothosis was going to make me a lot of money (and it will for him) then I'm sure I would unconciously find it far more credible and appealing. People's self interest color their judgements. I have no doubt he believes he is sincere. I have no doubt the evidence he provides looked suspicious to him and when he started getting involved with the whole thing he found a great deal of new found social and economic oportunity that made it emotionally and financially rewarding to continue on that path. WAS 4.250 18:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"I don't care about the WTC 7 collapsing; I only care about the two that were hit by planes." Interesting that how a 47 story building came down is completely insignificant to you... "Maybe WT7 was deliberatly destroyed to keep a secret that would have been revealed" So that would mean that it was destroyed as part of a coverup. "Someone panicing and pushing a fail-safe button that destroys WTC 7 (or some such scenerio) doesn't prove the twin towers falling was also caused with planted explosives." What it does prove is that it had to have been set up for demolition at least several days before 9/11. Controlled demolitions require careful planning and setup. All of the explosive charges cannot be placed in a matter of hours - particuarly not on a day like 9/11. So whoever had the explosives placed would have had to have had advance knowledge of 9/11. If WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition this would also prove that the official FEMA/ASCE and NIST teams, who produced reports on how it supposedly collapsed, either were intentionally deceptive or did not have the ability (for whatever reasons) to detirmine the true cause of its collapse. And this would cast serious doubt (to say the least) on the credibility of their reports regarding how the Twin Towers fell.

"[The concrete] wasn't ALL turned into dust, most of it was carted away in chunks." Show me some evidence of this. Have you found any photos of large chunks of concrete in the debris field? All the photos I've seen just show the steel beams and a lot of dust. Also the statements I've read and seen on video of firefighters and rescue workers all say that everything was pulverized into dust. I've you've got some evidence to the contrary, I'd be very interested to see it.

You say that Dr. Jones hasn't put his reputation on the line, but I think he clearly did - by endorsing analysis which others had dismissed as "conspiracy theory." If his analysis were without merit, it could easilly be debunked, and he'd be the laughing stock of all his colleagues. But he's sumbitted his work to peer reviewed journals. Now you've suggested that Jones may just have mercinary motives, but what about the editors of those journals that accept his work for publication? They're not marketed to the general public, but rather to the scholarly community, and their reputation depends on the scientific merit of what they publish. Also, nobody's asked you to spend your own money on the research. Jones has asked though that the NIST and the various government agencies release all the evidence they have so that it can be investigated by a truely independent group of scientists from around the world who would seriously consider the demoltion hypothesis (for both the Twin Towers and WTC7) along with other hypotheses that have been proposed by the previous investigations. Does this not sound reasonable to you?... Blackcats 20:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Interesting that how a 47 story building came down is completely insignificant to you" look up number of deaths in the world per year. Calculate number per second. Now tell me again about what I should care about. I could have better phrased it as saying even if that building was deliberately destroyed it proves nothing about the twin towers. "So that would mean that it was destroyed as part of a coverup." No. The US has tons of secrets. Suppose that building had key ECHELON stuff in it and was rigged with explosives "just in case" and the explosives were set off by a panicked person. Not a coverup, just keeping secrets as usual. My father was in military intelligence and I have had top secret USAF clearance. (but not now, I'm retired) The US has more military secrets than you can imagine. "official FEMA/ASCE and NIST teams, who produced reports on how it supposedly collapsed, either were intentionally deceptive or did not have the ability (for whatever reasons) to detirmine the true cause of its collapse. And this would cast serious doubt (to say the least) on the credibility of their reports regarding how the Twin Towers fell." No. The best lie is a half truth. There is no reason lies about one building implicate the report comments on the twin towers, although I have little doubt key facts were withheld for political reasons. I just think the covered up key facts probably had to do with mistakes and incompetance rather than an elaborate plan to blow up the twin towers. I don't know there were covered up key facts, but governments control by fraud and force, and excel at both. "Have you found any photos of large chunks of concrete in the debris field?" yes, I saw on TV dump truck after dump truck filled with the stuff as they carted it off. Scientists always "endorse analysis". Its their job: "give me money to study this". "easilly be debunked" and "laughing stock of all his colleagues" and "mercinary motives" completely misrepresents what I said and what I believe. "nobody's asked you to spend your own money on the research" I was suggesting others might feel likewise, sorry I miscommunicated. "Jones has asked though that the NIST and the various government agencies release all the evidence they have so that it can be investigated by a truely independent group of scientist from around the world who would seriously consider the demoltion hypothesis (for both the Twin Towers and WTC7) along with other hypotheses that have been proposed by the previous investigations. Does this not sound reasonable to you?" We have freedom of infoemation act. He can get released all data not deemed a secret. What was the government reponse to his request as per the freedom of information act? Or was his request simply a media ploy? WAS 4.250 20:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Misinformation

Hey Blackcats, I was wondering if you happened to know whether or not the user who posted the misleading information about Alex Jones and pod theories is the same user that posted false information on Jones' biography about Jones throwing his support behind a political candidate who thinks he's god. SkeenaR 22:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that was interesting. I've noticed what I think are some not so subtle attempts at article sabotage such as in the Official Story Challenged section. That's why I was asking. SkeenaR 08:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Pentagon collision

Would you happen to know where there is an article about the September 11, 2001 Pentagon collision? There doesn't seem to be a link, for some reason, on the main September 11, 2001 attacks page... Ombudsman 05:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could get your take on whether I should change anything on my user page as far as pictures are concerned in order to avoid any issues with copyright or any other things. SkeenaR 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Proposal pending at 9/11 conspiracy theories

I'm unsure as to why you've notified me about this issue. While I don't mind taking a look at it, is there some sort of special interest or insight I'm supposed to have on this subject? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Washington

If you want the move discussion on only one talk page, then why did you bring it up on 2 talk pages?? Georgia guy 02:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• To alert potentially interested Wikipedians about the discussion's existence - so that they could follow the link provided and discuss it there. Blackcats 02:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Unintentional revert on Washington, DC

Sorry about that, I was chasing down a bunch of unsourced, and possibly dubious, edits, and didn't update my watchlist for a while. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

ReactOS

Your "minor" edit there messed up the license links in the infobox - turning them red when they had been blue. [1] Please be more careful next time! Thanks. Blackcats 10:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted the whole edit, not just part of it. I hope that explains it. — Alex 20:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, going over the changes I've made, I don't remember what exactly I was doing... Sorry. — Alex 20:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Washington (disambiguation)

Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh in my edit summary. Now that the whole sentences for DC and WA aren't bolded, it looks a lot better... and you're right about the order that they should be listed in. My bad. Matt Yeager 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal 2.0 voting has begun

See here and Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 20:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You have no comment on this issue? zen master T 15:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Blackcats, you OK man? SkeenaR 05:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion

Hi, one or both of the following situations applies to you, and you may therefore be interested in related discussions.

• You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 200 verses of the Gospel of Matthew. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 199 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
• You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 19 verses of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of John. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 18 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20

You may also be interested in a discussion of whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters, and whether or not they should only use the translations favoured by fundamentalists. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Blackcats, I am looking for people to support my article on Cum Dumpster. You defended cum fart, and I was hoping you would review it and vote. Thanks! --DigitalPimpette 17:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamophilia

You might be interested in contributing to the new article of islamophilia. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace

Since you've voted on the last AfD which resulted in DELETE, you might be interested, that the article is still here and I've created another AfD for it. Raphael1 18:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Don Paul

Blackcats, it looks like a concerted effort is being made to erase yet another article relating to the 9/11 debacle. Please have a look. Ombudsman 03:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Charlotte, NC

Hello, it appears that you have some knowledge of Charlotte, North Carolina area. WikiProject Charlotte would like to invite you to join us and expand Wikipedia's information on this Carolina city/region.

Please help with Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles

I would appreciate any help you could provide with the new Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles proposal/essay and also over on wiktionary's definition of "conspiracy theory" here. zen master T 23:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Youranus

I have nominated Youranus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

About fatty acids comment in Talk:acid

Fats are not fatty acids. They are insoluble esters of fatty acids and glycerol. That is why they are neutral. A typical fatty acid would be stearic acid. React it with glycerol and get glyceryl tristearate. Fats can react with alkalis to form metal salts and glycerol; this process is called saponification. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Equity and gender feminism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Equity and gender feminism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equity and gender feminism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Pencilvania" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pencilvania. Since you had some involvement with the Pencilvania redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)