|
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Figs Might Ply ( talk) 07:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. Will Beback talk 11:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please see my text in Talk:Insite#Expert Advisory Committee. Minphie ( talk) 13:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
User talk:Minphie#Just a reminder, whatever you do — Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 09:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Needle_Exchange_Programme:Talk Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 03:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Needle exchange programme
Please add any relevant thoughts or comments. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 19:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for noticing. Here it is again. Steinberger ( talk) 12:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
|
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Figs Might Ply ( talk) 07:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. Will Beback talk 11:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please see my text in Talk:Insite#Expert Advisory Committee. Minphie ( talk) 13:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
User talk:Minphie#Just a reminder, whatever you do — Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 09:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Needle_Exchange_Programme:Talk Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 03:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Needle exchange programme
Please add any relevant thoughts or comments. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 19:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for noticing. Here it is again. Steinberger ( talk) 12:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)