User talk:Steinberger

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Steinberger! 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. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User name

If you want, you can probably ask to take over Steinberger as a user name - there was only one edit[1] and that was two years ago, to a talk page. See WP:CHU/U 199.125.109.103 (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, tanks. I have thought about it, but knowing how to do. Ssteinberger (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Drug policy

I thought you might be interested in this as you are another editor of this page:

An article that you have been involved in editing, Drug policy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drug policy. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? NJGW (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just let Dala finish the articles he's making, and when he hasn't edited them for some time fix it up to wiki standards. I've seen this sort of thing before, and at that time I tried calm rational discussion on the talk page. That didn't work (they never replied), so I waited until the article went dormant and fixed everything without a fight. This is already heated, so just wait until he's butting heads with someone else and forgets about this foxhole he's digging. Just work on articles he use to edit, where you can work with the other editors towards a reasonable consensus. NJGW (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know this guy from Swedish Wikipedia and there he annoys me so much that I'm tired up of writing articles on drug related matters. It has happen more then ones when I try to write something balanced, that he disorts its after being notified by his watchlist. It gets tiresome. I hope he gets banned for pov-pushing or whatever... Steinberger (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (just check out Wikipedia:RFC/How to present a case to see the best way to go about it). If you need some back up, either myself or some other editors from the articles in question could comment. Getting him banned is probably pretty unlikely, but if enough editors are watching him he may be forced to tone it down, and hopefully learn how to behave. Let me know if you have any questions. NJGW (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure you are not edit warring on Drug policy. Your last edit looks like just that. If there are mistakes in the text you removed, correct them instead of erasing the paragraph. Otherwise, because of the editing history of this article, you should use the talk page to discuss what you think needs to be removed. NJGW (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more careful. It was not my intention to engage myself in edit warring. As the last section of the ting I wrote has most information presented in his edit, I thought that additional mentioning of high public acceptance would balance out the irrelevant, unsourced (but as far as I know true) statement of "just" 10% in favor of cannabis legalization. I thought this was self-evident. Steinberger (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make good corrections, add better sources, and in general make the section correct. However, if you are removing sections you need to explain why you are doing so. The first sentence in the section right now, "Sweden has a zero-tolerance policy..." is a good beginning of a summery. I don't know enough about the subject to say too much more, but here's a good layout for each of the sections: [2]. If Australia didn't copyright its government publications I would copy and paste that into the article. NJGW (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about french fries in Sweden

Hi, somebody at the French fry article had a question about a way it says some Swedes eat fries: Talk:French_fries#Sweden_-_two_things. I thought maybe you could answer whether people actually eat fries with ice cream on a regular basis there, or if it might be a joke someone wrote. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion dispute resolution requested

An editor has requested a Third opinion intervention at Drug policy of Sweden. You have been named as a party to the dispute. Please give me a brief description the pertinent issues and realted diffs. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English

Hi Steinberger, please be sure you're messages are in English. This policy is so no one thinks there is something being hidden in a foreign language, and to make sure no one is breaking any policies (not that I think those issues applies to you, but it's still important to follow the policies). NJGW (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insite

Just wanted to say thanks for tirelessly trying to keep the POV edits by Dala11a out of the article for Insite. That article was a pet project of mine for a while, so it's good to see that some people are determined to improve it, not just push their point of view. And if you ever want to try to make a case against Dala11a, let me know. - Gump Stump (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zero tolerance

Your last deleting in of the prevalence for "problem drug users" is very close to pure vandalism, your reason was that the number was not in the source. But the principle in Wikipedia is that the number, in this case 281, is a traceable number. The number is a result of 26000, as stated in the source, divided by the population in Sweden, very basic math. If that is not allowed is the result bad for Wikipedia. For ex if one source use gasoline price in dollar per gallon and another in Euro per liter, how do you compare them if it is not allowed to use basic math to recalculate?Dala11a (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. There is no principle on Wikipedia where you can use "traceable number[s]". I can give you a couple of reasons for this. EMCDDA calculates that Sweden has 2.9 per 1000 inhabitants, so either your or EMCDDA basic math is flawed. Even if both of your calculations are flawed (or right), at least EMCDDA's can't be considered to be original research. [3] Second, for example the Nehterlands have 2.1-3.2 (depending on method, but all seems to derive from a total of 34000) per 1000, but in the 16-64 age span. [4] Looking through some other countries, most have that age span or a similar (15-65, 15-44, ect) If you what to compare, all calculations have to be the same, or at least such things as witch age groups that are included have to be disclosed. It's like calculating your gasoline example, not only without giving a date but also by picking a the price from a random gas station in the US and a random in some undisclosed Euro-country and only believing that both prices are average and then believing that the calculated number represents some greater truth about gas prices on the Transatlantic axle. So back to the zero tolerance article. What is relevant with only the Swedish number in the first place? Steinberger (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War on Drugs is Working

Hi Steinberger,

I have been expanding the Arguments in Favor of the War on Drugs section. I saw you added the caveat that statistics can be deceptive. I don't think your edit is in an appropriate place, although I agree with its general point. For the record, I think the War on Drugs is about the worst idea possible, but this section should present the best arguments in its favor and allow the data to speak for itself. I am going to remove your edit for now, since it seems out of place with the tone and NPOV of the article, but feel free to contact me if you want to discuss it.

note: the IP address I am using is public —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion without reason, without discussion.

In the article about Harry J. Anslinger you recently reverted my removal of a statement that had an obviously unsatisfactory source. Do not do that again, use the discussion page. 80.202.31.30 (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not notice that you had risen the question on the discussion page. As you did not give reference to your post in the edit summary, or gave any other motivation, I mistook you for a vandal who deleted source material. Sorry once again. Steinberger (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another revertion without reason and discussion

Here [5] you claim you dont know what WP:NOR and WP:OR means and then give me a link "proving" your point. The other article you are pointing to needs a lot of work but it is another issue. I revert. If you have any reasoning please go to the appropriate page and present your argument. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided in that diff was to a section within that very same article. Everything Tiamut wrote, you reverted away, and I back, is backed up by sources elsewhere the article (needless to say, nothing in the lead have sources at the moment). It is not original research. Steinberger (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revertion without reason to untruthfull substance and unscientific language and stance.

You insist on including unverifiable and untruthfull claims about penal codes in sweden. You are engaging in more than disruptive editing. It is against Wikipedia policy but more important your edits are suberversive and the negative misinformation you perjure yourself are treachery. This is your final warning to stop this nonsence. To be perfectly clear - what you are doing is considered more harmful by the proper authority than for instance someone doping off with a joint once in a while. Do you need us to come to your house to explain this or are you done?

CS 02:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, a threat! And because I am so very afraid of morons, I must stop obscuring the truth so that I don't get unwelcome guests. Steinberger (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Just wanted to drop you a note apologizing for my completely inadvertent deletion of your vote at the Cook AfD, as I was deleting the comments of a banned user. Slim happily noticed it, and reverted. Again, apologies.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aftonbladet

I was wondering if you could say whether or not you're an employee of Aftonbladet or have any sort of direct connection to the affair discussed in the Aftonbladet-Israel controversy article. The only reason I'm asking is that you seem to be straining to defend Aftonbladet's reputation vis-a-vis other Swedish newspapers. I don't mean to imply anything else and I hope you won't take offense at my question. Of course you have no obligation whatsoever to answer it, but I would appreciate it very much if you did. Respectfully, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take more offense from the accusation that I should have defended Aftonbladet vis-a-vis other Swedish newspapers, to be true. I don't feel I have. But to be clear: I am in no way affiliated with Aftonbladet nor active in any other organization, political or otherwise, that have an opinion in the Israel-Palestine question. Steinberger (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I didn't mean to offend you. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harm Min

Hi Steinberger,

Any edits you would like to make on Harm reduction, Safe injection site or Needle-exchange programme would be greatly welcomed. I've been stuck in a bit of an edit war with Minphie who wrote the section you tagged as being essay-like. Some more perspectives would help to move the debate on a little and hopefully weed out what I consider to be poor referencing and weak criticisms of harm minimisation approaches. --rakkar (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstatement of Sweden's rehab yielding lowest levels

Please go to discussion page for Harm Reduction. If you wish to do a spreadsheet that shows the statement is wrong as per my explanation in Harm Reduction Talk I would invite you to do so. Minphie (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safe injection site

Hi Steinberger. I noticed this edit you made to Safe injection site. While I agree that that section is horribly broken and POV, I still think there is some notable information in there (like the existence of those UN and government reports and their criticism of injection sites, despite the fact the writers may have been POV pushing or using faulty assumptions). I hope you will consider extracting whatever information is contained in those sections and integrating it. - Gump Stump (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but most of it seems to fail the policy on original synthesis, bringing original and unvetted though to Wikipedia. But, sure. The critique that International Narcotics Control Board brings is relevant enough. Steinberger (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here for attempt to resolve edit war on harm min - Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Consensus.2C_Cooperation_.26_Civility.

--Figs Might Ply (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steinberger, Minphie has responded to my complaint against him, if you have time, could you swing by and comment if you have time? Cheers, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Consensus.2C_Cooperation_.26_Civility_with_response_from_user_in_question --Figs Might Ply (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on your edits, it's getting very tiring trying to work with an uncooperative zealot like Minphie.--Figs Might Ply (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed all this stuff - Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Harm_reduction. I think it is obvious that this is not going to be resolved through consensus and I wonder if we need to "take it further". As I see it, Minphie has been involved in the following dispute resolution proceedures:

User_talk:Rakkar#Now_approaching_Administrator_re_clear_and_flagrant_vandalism_of_Harm_Reduction_page - Tried to complain about Rakkar and was quickly dismissed as a trivial and undeserved request.
Wikiquette (archived version) - reported for non-cooperation. Other editors told him his view of how to resolve the matter was wrong and that he would need to cooperate w/ us.
Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Harm_reduction - told again very clearly that he needs to cease his current line of argument and again he has since made multiple edits to Harm Min & SIF articles with little or no justification.

On suggestion from the Wikiquette process was requesting Wikipedia:RfC/U. I believe we may soon need to do this as I expect that your recent edits will be reverted and my recent discussion will be curtly dismissed or ignored. What are your thoughts?--Figs Might Ply (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the chances that he will heed my warning is slim so then RfC/U is the next logical step. Really, we should already have done it, enough editors have told him - I have noticed all above before. However, I feel that my English is somewhat shaky for such delicate work and also lack of time have made it easy to constantly push it in front of me with yet another reversion - and I bet that it is the same for you (well, except the language thing though). I would be glad to help you out in any way I can with diffs and the like if you start drafting a request or else I have a oceans of free time later next week. But then I would appreciate if you'd look over my draft before I'll post it so that it is free from grammatical errors and elseway readable. Steinberger (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's tiring. Let's get it up and running in the next few days as a joint effort. --Figs Might Ply (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steinberger, I have already told you that support from the 'original research' forum was only based on your telling a part of the truth. You did not tell them that every assertion I made had a citation from a critic of maintenance and heroin maintenance programs. If you wish to take this further I will be exposing the ploy. Remember that the history is there for all to see, along with the citations. I encourage you to check the citations to see whether any original research charge could be leveraged. Perhaps you have not read my comments on the Harm Reduction Discussion page either.Minphie (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We "did not tell them" because we disagree with you. It's not our responsibility to point out your mistakes AND defend them. That's your job. By the way, unless you find something in the 2003 MSIC evaluation not covered by later reports that a verifiable source supports, you cannot keep referencing it. It has been superseded as the most current evaluation.--Figs Might Ply (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the RfC/U is in a finished state? Thanks for your edits, I was going crazy trying to pull it all together. --Figs Might Ply (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that something is missed. Post it. Steinberger (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I have the mental energy for it, but should be also include WP:POINT, WP:GAMING, and WP:CIVIL? Or save that for later if this fails to modify behaviour? --Figs Might Ply (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harm reduction. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the diffs supposed to be reverts? If so I reject example numbers "11" and "13". Although I feel that others where justified I will not contest that they where reversions and thus that there is a edit war. Steinberger (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have also been edit warring on Blood libel. Please stop. Will Beback talk 06:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This problem with edit warring is probably more serious of a problem than you realise Will Beback.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steinberger I am sorry, I warned you and you failed to listen so unfortunately it is time to escalate this due to the serious disruption that you are engaging in on the encyclopedia. I have reported you to the Edit Warring noticeboard.Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Steinberger_reported_by_User:Literaturegeek--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What now? I did take the DFA source and ran with it. You encouraged me to try to improve Minphies edits, rather then reverting them. So I did. Steinberger (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review all changes after you warned me, and you will see that I have not removed anything, without adding something corresponding. Steinberger (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You went to blood libel and edit warred there a matter of hours after I warned you about edit warring. This is about disruption to the encyclopedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you don't overstretch it now? Reverting back unsourced material, sure. Reverting over how to interpret sourced material, maybe. But how can challenging unsourced material be disruptive? Steinberger (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD, does not need to be cited, it is meant to be a summary of the cited main body of the article. Citations are not required, but are optional for the lead.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway edit warring after being warned about edit warring can't be justified even if you were right or wrong. There are editor and article talk pages to use to avoid edit warring.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, nowhere in the Blood libel article is it said that they are false (although it should say that the classic involving Jews generally are believed to be so and some sources used say just that). Second, I was engaging on the talkpage. Editors before me had risen the question on the talkpage. Nothing happened. Some editors insited on having "false" there. Steinberger (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the talk page in addition to edit warring is not quite what I meant. Look you know how to wiki lawyer other editors and know the policies and processes and use them against people whom you disagree with, I shouldn't need to talk to you as if you are a newbie. I really see this conversation as going nowhere.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. Better we'll part. Steinberger (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring block

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Will Beback talk 11:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Ultimately unnecessary as the message is understood. It have been more then 22 hours since my last revert and mush have happened since to make me realise the seriousness of the charge. As a seasoned user, one should never war. Rather one should more quick to take matters through the proper channels of dispute resolution when a dispute turns sour.}} Steinberger (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be able to edit that mush if I got unblocked prematurely anyway - I have to shop groceries, cook, eat and get to work, then sleep and it will take up most of the time. So I depost my request for unblocking so as not to unnecessarily drain administrator energy. Steinberger (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be edit warring again. If you continue, your account will be blocked again. Please use the article talk page to find consensus before reverting edits. Will Beback talk 19:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it takes two to tango. Not so that I don't recognize your warning. But looking at the edit history of the relevant page it saddens me to see that you failed to recognize that Galassi reverted as many times as I did. Especially as he clearly have the burden of proof. Steinberger (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology and congratulations

Hello, Steinberger! I'm afraid I owe you an apology. I duplicated some research that you had already performed, but of which I was unaware, concerning the bogus publication, Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice that's now at AfD. I posted my results to the article's talk page, and people said nice things about me at the AfD for doing so, but as I've now observed there (at the AfD):

I should also just add quickly that although I dug up the sources I posted to the article's talk page independently, it's actually user Steinberger who deserves most of that credit. As I've just seen from the NPOV/N thread on this that was linked to, above, he actually found and cited the first two of the three sources I posted to the article's talk page before I was even aware of this issue.

Please accept my apology for my mistake, and my congratulations for your fine work in helping sort this correctly. Best regards, – OhioStandard (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense. Rather the opposite. That you, independent of what I already had researched, came to the same conclusions strengthen my confidence. Steinberger (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's very gracious. I thought I'd just mention, also, that you might like to revisit the the article with a view toward possibly changing your !vote at the AfD discussion from "Delete and merge" to "Keep". I've changed my own !vote from "delete" to "keep", as did Crusio (who nominated the article for deletion) based on the AfD discussion and on the content and sources newly added to the article. Best regards, – OhioStandard (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem in Harm reduction article

I noticed a problem in this article that you might like to address. A close examination of the paragraph that begins with the phrase "Critics of this intervention" seems in order. I'm not as familiar with the sources used in that article as you must be, but that paragraph appears to give the a false impression.

Specifically, the Chapter 11: Drug consumption facilities in Europe and beyond source that's cited in the paragraph as {{harvnb|EMCDDA|2010|p=308}} to document the passage identifying which studies have been the most "rigorous", and that reports largely positive results for Insite and the Sydney center are conflated in that paragraph with criticism by Drug Free Australia and Real Women of Canada and the highly-critical "Expert Advisory Committee" report by Conservative politician Tony Clement. The paragraph currently implies that the "most rigorous studies" said the Insite and Sydney programs were ineffective, when just the reverse is true, if I understand that chapter correctly. The paragraph needs to be rewritten, but I'm not comfortable doing so myself, since I don't know the sources as well as you do. Might you have time to try to sort the problem? Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have found it, that is the section I mean. I have tried to rewrite it, but have been reverted by Minphie (repeatedly and been blocked for it). I have to go to work now, but I will be off for some days after that and will try to find some time to work on this. But as a quick comment, Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is not even near to bad in comparison to the rest. The problem with JGDPP, in comparison as the other, was that they did not disclose that they where driven by a political agenda rather then a legitimate journal. The other don't pretend that they are anything but agenda driven. Steinberger (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked through the history of these related articles, Insite, etc. , and I saw all this. It's a real mess. I'd suggest you rewrite the section based on what the cited sources actually say. If you do that very carefully, I'll make the time to review your changes with the same measure of care. If I find what you've done is accurate and properly cited, I'll of course do my best to make sure that your changes will stay in the article. But that paragraph, at least, can't remain the way it is now; it gives a very false impression.

I do have some questions about the Drug Free Australia group as a reliable source, but it will take me some time to research that before I can come to any conclusion. In the meantime you should look at the talk page for the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, if you haven't already. I suspect that most of what I've documented there is probably already known to you, but it may encourage you to see that the truth is there for anyone who's willing to investigate...

But wow, that Straight, Incorporated adolescent "treatment" business that Mel Sembler started with his wife was just evil. I've spent some time reading the stories that adults have written about their experiences of having to live in those facilities, as adolescents, for up to two years, like the one buried here in the history of that article. Apparently they'd like to "treat" everyone who uses drugs that way. The Semblers are the founders of Drug Free America Foundation, of course, perhaps (?) along with Calvina Fay. You're probably also aware that many people across the web claim that DFAF is a direct descendent of Straight. Very, very nasty stuff. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bwah! My computer crashed just as I was to send a long commentary to what you found about Straight, Inc. I won't rewrite it, just say that I think large part of the treatment industry is amateurish and outright dangerous. I recognize some of the evil bits and can relate, as we in Sweden have had some reports about serious abuse as well. Even personally heard some hair-raising stories - although not of the caliber you found in the edit history.

When it comes to Drug Free Australia, have you seen the hansard from NSW Parlament when discussing the center in Sydney? (See safe injection site#evaluations where it is used as a source.) Steinberger (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my slow response. For reasons I don't understand, my watchlist often seems to miss changes to pages that it includes. Thank you for the mention of the hansard's discussion of Drug Free Australia. I read most of the mentions made of the organization in that document, and it made me tired. I get very tired of political advocacy organizations so blatantly misrepresenting data to promote their POV. They really don't constitute a WP:RS at all, in my opinion.

By the way, speaking of POV, do you have our drug policy "journal" article watchlisted? You'll recall that I asked everyone who participated in its recent AfD to do that, and one recent change, at least, seems troubling to me. Please scroll down and notice the removal of the quotation from the Canadian Medical Association Journal, especially.

Also, re computer crashes while editing, I've had that happen recently, too. I'm sorry to learn that you have, as well; it's always very frustrating. But with Firefox, I've found that, after a reboot, once I restart the browser, and then refresh the tab for the editing session, that the text I've composed is still there in the active editing window. The same technique has worked for me in the past when just the browser itself has crashed. Thank you very much, though, for your effort to comment about Straight, Inc. I'm just so puzzled how people can do such evil and seem to sincerely believe that they're doing good. Best regards, – OhioStandard (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with the quote from CMAJ was it generalized usage as a criticism of the journal, while it (nominally) refereed to a specific study. But I can't see any problem if we rephrase it as criticism of that specific study. If we also add criticism of other studies, such as the one on Insite. The readers will generalize the criticism of those specific cases to the whole journal for themselves. What do you think about a section on studies in the journal where examples and these kind of issues can be raised? Steinberger (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011-05 Template:Islam in Europe by country

[14][15] For your information, Template:Islam in Europe by country and File:Islam in Europe-2010.svg are mostly based on 2009' en:List of countries by Muslim population. Feel free to update them to 2011' datas. And you're right that « "muslims" [...] may be interpreted to be broader [than] "islam" ». Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[16] As previously wrote, feel free to correct and update Template:Islam in Europe by country and File:Islam in Europe-2010.svg. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... I did it myself... Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total number of times JGDPP articles have been cited

Hi, Steinberger. Do you know how many times the so-called Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice has been cited in legitimate journals, for anything but criticism, by researchers or academics who have no conflict of interest? The number could be as high as two. That's it, just twice.

And because I have yet to see the full text of the articles where those two citations are made, it may turn out that not even a single non-governmental journal has ever written favorably about JGDPP or any article it has published. This is what I didn't have time to research sufficiently or present adequately at the last love feast about it at RSN, incidentally.

The only legitimate reason to cite it at all would be if one of its papers makes it into the news, as occurred when an official of Canada's conservative Harper government mentioned it to support closing Insite. Any editor should certainly feel free to delete-on-sight any conclusions or statements cited to it, and if asked to explain, to just say in a sentence or two that never being favorably cited means it isn't taken at all seriously by the legitimate academic community, and that Wikipedia can't take it seriously if the academic community doesn't. – OhioStandard (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you work at the relevant talkpage a while ago and I am impressed. But I know a argument our australian friend will put forht, namily: As both Lisa Jones and colleges [17] and Norah Palmeeter and colleges [18] are citing Kerstin Käll with colleges, it have affirmed the journals credentionals. It should be noted that Jones is saying that Källs review is of poor design and they are only citing her as Käll is saying that the case for NEP is based on modest evidence. And also that Palmeeter is concuring with this assesment of Källs review. But how do you feel about those two? Steinberger (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steinberger. Sorry for the slow reply. Studies by "public policy think tanks" aren't peer reviewed, and have more lattitude for that reason. And if I recall correctly, the journal Addiction didn't allow the Kall publication to be included as a "core study" or anything else when the results of Palmeeter and colleagues were published in that prestigious journal. Further, quasi-governmental support really isn't the standard for acceptance of a journal or a paper; such organizations and public-policy think tanks are too dependent on keeping their governments happy... If government funding or affiliation were all that mattered then we'd have to say that JGDPP would be reliable because it was funded by the Bush Department of Justice.

More important, Kall has an insuperable conflict of interest re JGDPP that I think would have probably have disqualified her (his?) paper from consideration by even Jones or Palmeeter if they had been aware of it: You know JGDPP is a "project" of Drug Free America Foundation, of course. Well, the so-called International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy is another one of its very many astroturf "organizations" with high-sounding names. ( If you click that link you'll see that it also mentions the Drug Prevention Network of the Americas, btw, yet another DFAF astroturf web site posing as some kind of independent organization. ) But also click on the "members" page for International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy, and along with DFAF founders Betty Sembler and Calvina Fay (she's also an "honorary" member of the board of "REAL Women of Canada" btw ) you'll also find the name of Kerstin Kall. Oh, and also that of Colin Mangham, by the way, as well as Robert DuPont.

Do you know who owns the website for the International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy? Check out the WHOIS data; it's the Drug Free America Foundation, of course. DFAF owns about thirty-five websites that I'm aware of, and most of them present themselves as if they were independent organizations.

Some journalist really needs to investigate this and write about it; there's definitely a "story" here that needs to be told. Perhaps the man who wrote the article about Insite in Salon.com would be interested in writing about this, as well? It wouldn't surprise me to learn that DFAF was also behind Drug Free Australia, besides REAL Women of Canada, and all the other organizations that have given support to JGDPP "papers". A great many of these ostensibly independent "organizations" are just one, big, well-financed, moderately sophisticated, incestuous group, as has been demonstrated. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that most of the rest of the ones that DFAF and JGDPP traffic with were part of that same group, as well.

So, to summarize, Kall is not independent of JGDPP; neither is Mangham. They both are effectively members of DFAF, via the so-called International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy. So we have DFAF members, effectively, publishing their own "papers". That makes them self-published sources, or something very, very close, anyway; it makes JGDPP a "house publishing arm", anyway. Its no wonder no one in legitimate journals cite it. Hope that helps. – OhioStandard (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw; just saw this, and thought it might be of interest. Note EMCDDA connection. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on Reliable Sources - JGDPP and Drug Free Australia

OhioStandard, DocJames, Steinberger, I believe that we are at a place where this content dispute needs the input of other parties beyond the neutral third party comment previously requested and received on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. DocJames, you appear ready to take action and this may be a possible way ahead, so invite you to take it. I certainly feel that mediation/arbitration of the issue is the next step according to what I see in the dispute resolution policies. I have not altered text on the pages with disputed text, but if you have not initiated a further step in dispute resolution in the next few days then I will be happy to initiate it. Minphie (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request Lodged

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Illicit Drug Interventions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minphie (talk • contribs) 04:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J Street

Hi Steinberger, I will rephrase the text. The references are valid and strong, and I will post a new rephrased edition regarding this J street funding today.--Tritomex (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Also, it seems to me that your posts on my channel page is not the right place for your concerns. All your concerns should be brought to the discussion page.--Tritomex (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, yor talk page seem to be just the right avenue for this. Copyright violations is nothing that needs to be discussed. The material should be removed and the user that have made them should be warned. Steinberger (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Supervised injection site, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sidney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Police Crackdown

Please see my text in Talk:Insite#Expert Advisory Committee. Minphie (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Hi, Steinberger. It's perfectly all right if you want to take a break from the harm reduction articles, of course; I don't want to draw you back into the topic area if you feel "burned out" from all the strife, but it's good to see you back on wikipedia. You don't really check your e-mail so often, though, I think, although it's fine if you just choose not to reply, as well, of course. If you are still interested in the topic area, though, you might like to see that the Drug Free Australia thread is still active at RSN. No penalty, though, if you'd rather not. And no need to explain your wiki-break either; none at all. It's healthy to take breaks from this place; it certainly is quite strange in some ways, despite its value and appeal. I need to sign off immediately after posting this message, btw, but will check back here when I'm next online. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Steinberger. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Just taking note of some talk going on in the background...

User talk:Minphie#Just a reminder, whatever you do — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. But I'm short of time and not able to jump in and help. And by the way, you are doing a great job on your own. Steinberger (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needle exchange programme on dispute resolution noticeboard

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Needle_Exchange_Programme:Talk Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needle exchange dispute escalated to a request for mediation

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Needle exchange programme

Please add any relevant thoughts or comments. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

RE: Talk:Loading gauge#A possibly useful source. The link pdf-file no longer works ^{[dead link‍]}. Peter Horn User talk 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. Here it is again. Steinberger (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Steinberger. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]