User talk:ITBlair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Hello ITBlair! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Button sig2.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Good work[edit]

You're really getting the hang of things. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur, you really have adapted quick to Wikipedia! I hope you can use your great skills elsewhere, they would be much appreciated! :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit's about the Bowen family's religion[edit]

Since you have done some great work on the article, I wanted to explain why I removed the recent edits abouth the influence of their religion. Wikipedia articles must confrom to a neutral point of view and any hint that one religion (or lack thereof) is better or makes better people. There are probably equal numbers of Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and agnostic/atheist editors and admins here and if we let one religion have special priveleges, little would get done beyond fighting about the "one true faith." Check out the talk page of any of the world's major religions or religious figures to see what I mean. I did add a category so that readers would make no mistake about the Bowen family's faith and it could be discussed in the article as long as it didn't imply that the Bowens are good people only because they are Christians. What I've heard about them, I believe that they would be pillars of their community regardless of how they worshiped.

Also, saying "Tom (9/11 stuff) and Jebbifer Bowen" makes for a better article flow. Take care, God bless, and keep up the great work. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Neutral Point of View. But the Fact is that the Bowen's are Christain, they attribute their ability to deal with this tradgy to believing in God's Plan. Furthermore they believe that God is using Ben Bowen's life to influence people. I did refer to these believes via references. I could use Exact Quotes if that helps. I believe that Newspaper articles are in the Public domain. I am unsure about the Bowen web site.

Just because one family attributes their strengh in adversity to a belief in the Christain God, does not make atheiests (sp), hindu's, catholics, muslims, inferior. People of these faiths can also attribute their Strength to their respective strengths. To pretend that Christianity is not central to how this family raises their children and deals with the illiness and death of their son does not make sense. One should be neutral, but to deny that Christainity is central to the story of Ben Bowen and his family does not make sense, especially because they explicitly make this case. The Bowen's would say they are pillars of their community because they are Christain. Whether or not this is true or untrue for all Christians or people of other faiths is up to the reader to decide.

I will work to state these facts as quotes and/or very explicit references and keep a neutral tone.

Finally, perhaps the Honor's section should be remained Honor's and Influence or their should be a Honor's section and then an Influence section. The West VA citation pointed out that Ben Bowen was rich in his influence. This might be a reasonable approach. Let me know, what you this

Something like "Bowen's family ratioalizes his suffering as part of their Protestant Christian faith: "Quote from Tom and Jennifer."" would be fine. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The headstone photo that you added to Find-A-Grave..[edit]

Did you take the headstone photo? If so, you could upload it to Wikipedia as long as you are willing to release it under a free license. If not, the article still uses it as a reference, which works, too. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Broke Out an Influence Section[edit]

Not sure if this is the best format. I think a bit more on the dollars raised and a note on the overall consumption of funds at Saint Jude would be useful. I think I will start a separate Wiki page on Brain Cancer - ATRT.

Commercial use of Image:Zlj0070519420001.jpg[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Zlj0070519420001.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Zlj0070519420001.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Zlj0070519420001.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi. You are correct, RECAF is interesting. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. But let's get some help digesting it for wikipedia. I have nominated alpha-fetoprotein for collaborative editing. Please go to its talk page and from there vote on the nomination. Una Smith 04:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Qassam Rocket Attacks[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to List of Qassam Rocket Attacks. Since you are new here, I would just like to go over some guidelines regarding the use of sources. Please be sure to use the <ref>...</ref> tags with your sources. Also, when citing from Haaretz, JPost, YNet, CNN, Reuters, BBC, or other mainstream news source, please use the {{cite news}} reference format as in:

<ref>{{cite news| title=insert title here| url=insert url here| publisher=[[name of publisher]]| date=[[month day]], [[year]] }}</ref>

When citing a reference which is not a mainstream news source, please still use the reference tags, as in:

<ref>[insert_url_here insert_title_here] by [[insert_name_of_source]]</ref>

Although it is best to rely on mainstream news sources, one can use other sources which are considered to be reliable. However, please refrain from using sources which are either clearly partisan or which may be perceived to be partisan. The use of sources which others might perceive to be partisan weakens the article, by casting doubt on the reliability of other well-sourced parts of the article. Thank you again for your contributions. If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia articles in general or about editing Israel-related Wikipedia articles, feel free to ask. Best wishes. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to my earlier comments, please try to use a consistent and logical tense. Events which transpired should be described in the past tense, not in the present tense. For example, state that "Islamic Jihad fired rockets" not "Islamic Jihad fires rockets". Using the present tense to describe historical events is grammatically incorrect and will put native speakers of English on guard. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Prostate cancer[edit]

You were entirely right to revert back your version. I must have been tired... Finasteride is one of those drug articles that often gets stuffed with POV stuff because of people's bad experiences with Propecia. Gets me trigger happy - apologies.

Do you have any idea in which journal the PCPT 2005 paper appeared? JFW | T@lk 05:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not unusual for study results to appear several years after the conclusion of a trial. Some poor underpaid researcher needs to sit down with the data and analyse it. It is therefore entirely possible for PCPT results to appear in 2005. I don't think the Control Clin Trials reference is the one we're talking about; that journal usually publishes study protocols rather than outcome data. JFW | T@lk

Please take a look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC[edit]

This is a message sent to a number of editors who recently edited Weatherman (organization) or its related talk page, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take a look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. Thanks! -- Noroton (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Number of Morter and Rocket Attacks 2001 to Late 2008V4.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Number of Morter and Rocket Attacks 2001 to Late 2008V4.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Quoted source parenthetical[edit]

For lack of a better name off the top of my head, in re our Mahmoud Abbas article. To quote Bracket#Usage: "Square brackets are mainly used to enclose explanatory or missing material usually added by someone other than the original author, especially in quoted text." This wasn't a typo meant to be a link, just a clarification that the word "he" referred to Arafat. Just FYI! -- Kendrick7talk 06:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Just a note that I agree w/your adds to the lead. I had the AA item in the lead of both his article and the main article, but someone deleted it along the way.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for all the tireless work filling out the history, finding sources, etc. We'll have much better coverage of all this now. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You might have noticed that I have been removing a number of the additions you recently made to the article. You seem to be trying to support a thesis that the Weathermen killed a number of police officers. However, that is simply not borne out by the sources. Some of the events you are attributing to the weathermen are clearly not their actions. You have cited material to congressional testimony, which is not reliable source, and in fact you are citing things to pages that do not exist in the source, where the source does not even discuss the events you are attributing to the group. You might want to check to make sure you're not giving the wrong like here, because the congressional testimony at the link you're providing has nothing to do with the different content pieces you're proposing to add, but in any event witness testimony cannot verify the truth of claims here. I'm concerned that a more thorough review of all your contributions to the various articles may be in order, and if the sourcing is similarly weak we may have to simply undo it all and ask you to take it one step at a time. I'll be spot-checking some things, and if this looks to be a systematic problem I'm going to bring it to other editors' attention for some guidance on what to do. If I do, I'll let you know, but I hope that won't be necessary. If you can find reliable sources about the incidents, and they simply cannot be tied to the Weather Underground group, there are some other options per WP:PRESERVE where the content could stay if organized differently, e.g. a section on acts by related groups, unproven connections, or acts by other groups. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

December, 2009[edit]

Please review the above note, and do not re-insert unsourced accusations about living people committing murders, as you do here.[1] At this point I am going to ask you to stop adding content to Weather Underground Organization-related articles, until we can get this sorted out. If you continue I'm afraid that I'll have to bring this matter to the attention of administrators, who may well block your account from editing the encyclopedia at all to prevent disruption and further violations of the WP:BLP policy. Consider this a final warning on the subject given the seriousness of the issue. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

December Response[edit]

Senate Subcommitte Reports and Government Reports in general are great secondary sources, they are very public, put together by a diverse staff, and verifiable. I think it is incorrect to assert otherwise. However, I am more than willing to go to Administers on this issue of the Reliability of Congressional Reports. I could go to primary sources on the Deaths of these Policeman. In all cases Members of the Weather Underground were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to jail for each of these police murders. Because of these Murders many of these Weather Underground members made it to the FBI Top Ten Wanted List. There is no BLP issue, because I am citing a veriable and reliable source (Congress) and more importantly all these Weatherman individuals have all gone to trial and been found guilty.

In particular on Page 33 of the Senates 1975 Weatherman Underground report, they note the murder of the Boston Policeman as part of a Bank Robbery and the receipt of a Tape claiming WUO responsibility. This is a perfect secondary (and reliable) source and I believe that any Wikepedia Administration will agree. I URL for the report is in the article. It is also easy to find articles about the trials and convictions of these Weatherman individuals. They are also all listed as members of the Weather Underground in this Senate report.

If it is helpful I can list each Weatherman individual who was convicted for each specific murder.

It's hard to discuss this in the abstract without seeing the source and the claim that it's supposed to verify. The links you had provided were to something that was on the subject of the Weathermen but did not discuss the incidents in question at all. In general claims made by Congress are not reliable on matters of the politics at the time because Congress is a political body. They could be reliable to verify statements to the effect that "A 1974 congressional report said that....", but as a weight and relevancy matter we might need a stronger third party source to establish that. If the congressional source is the only one tying a certain person to a murder, or the Weathermen to that person, it's not enough. There could be exceptions.
Before we even get there, what is the source exactly? A number of places you cited the congressional record to stand for the proposition that explosives associated with the Weathermen were traced to Boulder, Colorado. But you cited it to page numbers that exceeded the number of pages in the document at that web location, and that document does not even contain the word "Boulder" per a web search. Could you be using the wrong link? Maybe this is all a misunderstanding or mistake. Let's start with one of them that I removed - feel free to pick any of them. Could you point me to the specific source that you have to back it up?

- Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed all the URLs to point to the Correct Source. I will let you know what I find in the FBI report sometime next week.

ITBlair (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that Senate Reports are reliable, barring evidence to the contrary. They are like Wall St Journal, NY Times, etc. I agree we can preface any statement with "A 1975 Senate Report..." On page 33 the report notes the Robbery in Boston. On page 36 it states that Susan Saxe and K. Powers are members of the WOU. I found a few other sources that state Susan Saxe meet and stayed with WUO members after the robbery (i.e., Mark Rudd & K. Dohrn).

On the Boulder matter, in the Senate Report on pages 29 - 31 they copy a Chicago Times Newspaper report that states the Dynamite purchased in Boulder was the same as used in the attempting bombings of the Detroit Police Station and other Police Office. It was also the same as found in the bomb factory in Chicago. The same dynamite and detonators were found in San Franciso. The dentonators are unique to the Boulder source. The bomb fragments from the Park Street bombing also match the Boulder dynamite.

Oops, you are right on the URL. I have the right reference, but the wrong URL. I put a copy on my hard-drive a few months ago. I did a google search and found a couple of locations where you can buy a copy. The one Free Version I managed to find is at the following URL:

I will gradually update the URLs. I downloaded an old FBI Report on the Weatherman (1976), but have yet to go through it. ITBlair (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems there is something very weird going on here. When I follow the links I don't get 36 pages or the word "boulder" at all. I have no doubt that you see a page 36 and the material you describe on your screen, but there is simply no page 36 or mention of any of this when I click the link. Can we try zeroing in on this? It sounds like it may be a technical problem. Browser compatibility? Dynamic pages responding differently to our two IP addresses? The FBI or Government Printing Office renumbered the documents and page numbers at its website? One of us is confused? This is one of the strangest things I've seen lately around here. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you following the link below, it works for me:

I could e-mail you my copy of the document or try to upload it on the Wiki Documents site. ITBlair (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the PDF copy I have to WikiSource (see URL below). The display is not very good, but it can be read.

ITBlair (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Wow, that's a great source! And not at all the one I was reading. Most of the referenes links you added are all in this general format:
The Weather Underground. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1975. p. 40. Retrieved December 20th, 2009.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
That calls up an Internet Archive page that in turn links to a 29-page "hearing before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary" transcript from January 31, 1975, here.[2] That is a 29 page document with images, documents added to the record, and a transcript of actual subcommittee testimony, interesting in its own right but not terribly reliable in a Wikipedia sense because it is the direct testimony of witnesses. The subcommittee report is much more reliable because it represents their findings, after weighing, reviewing, editing, etc., but even there I would note somewhere that it is all according to that report. Maybe the problem is Internet Archive? Or you just have the wrong link. I see nothing wrong with linking directly to the wikisource page but it would help if we can get closer to the source, and a better quality scan to boot. It's a us government publication so maybe there's a .pdf version that's indexed? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A new medical resource[edit]

Please note that there is a new freely accessible medical resource, MedMerits (to which I'm a medical advisor) on neurologic disorders. A discussion on ELs to MedMerits and medical ELs in general is currently in progress ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world"). Presto54 (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Number of Morter and Rocket Attacks 2001 to early 2008.gif listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Number of Morter and Rocket Attacks 2001 to early 2008.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Number of Morter and Rocket Attacks 2001 to early 2008.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Number of Morter and Rocket Attacks 2001 to early 2008.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Number of Morter and Rocket Attacks 2001 to early 2008V2.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Number of Morter and Rocket Attacks 2001 to early 2008V2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your work on Hilary Rosen . It's so nice to go to bed concerned about an article and wake up to find it fixed! Thank you. HectorMoffet (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Trayvon Martin at 7-11.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trayvon Martin at 7-11.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Medicine[edit]


I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)[edit]

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

  • Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
  • Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
  • If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)