User talk:Henrysteinberger

Welcome to Wikipedia
-- Craigtalbert (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Henry, I deleted a lot of articles for recovery groups that did not meet notability and qualified for speedy deletion. I am a secular humanist and I have no complaint with SMART Recovery's goals or methods. If I were trying to recover from an addiction I very well might seek out this group. I would appreciate it if, in the future, you assume good intent on the part of editors and administrators here at Wikipedia; it makes communication so much smoother and extinguishes potential flames. I will look into the article soon and let you know what needs to be done to recover it. ··coe l acan 05:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It turns out the article was considered for undeletion, at Deletion review/Log/2007 October 11, but this was declined because it was a copyright violation, a cut and paste of the Smart Recovery website. It'll have to be rewritten from scratch. Before anyone attempts to do so, though, it's necessary to establish whether the organization meets this guideline: Notability or specifically Notability (organizations and companies). The original article did not. So, has Smart Recovery received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?
 * As for a wikiproject, you would start at WikiProject Council/Proposals to suggest it and look for participants. ··coe l acan 14:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan - SMART Recovery has been noted in eight SAMHSA publications:

TIP 30, Continuity of Offender Treatment for Substance Use Disorders from Institution to Community TIP 34, Brief Interventions and Brief Therapies for Substance Abuse TIP 40, Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Opioid Addiction TIP 43, Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Addiction in Opioid Treatment Programs TIP 44, Substance Abuse Treatment for Adults in the Criminal Justice System TIP 47, Substance Abuse: Clinical Issues in Intensive Outpatient Treatment What is Substance Abuse Treatment? A Booklet For Families and the Spanish version, ¿Qué es el Tratamiento para el Abuso de Sustancias? Un Folleto para las Familias. Therapeutic Community Training Curriculum

It is recognized by five major health organizations: ASAM,SAMHSA's Clearinghouse for alcohol & Drug Information, NIDA, Center for Health Care Evaluation and the American Academy of Family Physicians. They have received funding from NIDA to develop training materials and from NIDA to Inflexxion to develop InsideOut, a corrections program based on SMART Recovery.

I could go on and on, but I think I have established the point. SMART Recovery is recognized and cited outside of it's own publications. Further, it has been shown to be equally effective in the Walsh study:Religiosity and participation in mutual-aid support groups for addiction by Randolph G. Atkins, Jr., Ph.D. and James E. Hawdon, Ph.D. published in the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Volume 33, Issue 3, October 2007, Pages 321-331, the article is now available on-line at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/ So, Craig, please, considering all of this please include the SMART Recovery article with a request for editing, rather than leave it totally deleted until some poor overworked wikipedist has the time to totally rewrite the article from scratch. {[helpme]}Henrysteinberger (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence of SMART Recovery's notability. SMART Recovery is extensively reviewed and used as a prime path to sobriety in Sober for Good: New solutions for drinking problems - advice from those who have succeeded by Anne M. Fletcher from Hiyghton Mifflin, 2001, which was subsequently covered in two weekly reviews by Jane Brody in the New York Times. SMART Recovery is noted in Hester & Miller's Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approachesa: Effective Alternatives 3rd edition, Allyn & Bacon, 2003, and in Managing Addictions: Cognitive, Emotive and Behavioral Techniques by F. M. Bishop, Aronson Press, 2001. I can also list numberous newspaper articles where local papers have covered the start of their local SMART Recovery groups and discussed the merits of the program. SMART Recovery has been presented at numerous yearly gatherings of psychologists and other health care professionals, and corrections officals. How many more citations are needed? It is notable. Henrysteinberger (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: As to editing, I'm more than up for it
Your last edit to Addiction recovery groups hasn't been undone (yet).

The change I undid on that article was because you added a lot of original research, -- like your comment about Rational Recovery, which may be true, but isn't cited.

The thing about notability is that it should be something that's obvious from reading the article -- not from reading a number of talk pages, where you argue it.

So, when you're making changes to an article, you need to cite the source of your statements otherwise it doesn't contribute to the notability and it is what wikipedians call original research. Take, for instance, one of the articles I wrote: GROW.

You'll notice that following a sentence or a set of sentences there are superscripted numbers, these numbers correspond to references to sources that are listed below in the references section. These are meant to indicated to readers and other editors where this information came from. If these were gone, a casual reader would have no way of determining it's notability of the topic by reading the article -- they'd have to go and research it on there own, making the article almost useless. So, to establish the notability and to show that I'm not doing original research, I cite my sources when writing the article.

When you don't do this, it gets wikipedians mad because original research damages our reputation as an encyclopedia. Then the articles get deleted, and edits get undone.

Like I've said before, please edit, but please mind WP:V, WP:N, WP:NPOV, and most importantly WP:NOR.

If you need help with any of the technical aspects, I would be more than happy to oblige you. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Craig - If I were to sort the list at the start of addiction recovery groups using information from the list of twelve-step groups in Wikipedia, would that be original research? Do I have to cite each group back to their web cite to prove that it is or is not a 12-Step group? And similarly cite each web site for the non-12-Step groups? Finally, the term "anonymous" which is 'synonomous' with the 12-Steps (original research) and groups ending their names in -on like Alanon, are clearly drawing on anon short for anonymous, but I can't find that anywhere - though it is an obvious conclusion. How does such a clarification get into an encyclopedia??Henrysteinberger (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the case of the list of the twelve step groups the external link or the link to the article should serve as an appropriate citation for the kind of group it is (e.g. people could look at the article or page for the group and verify this themselves). There are some articles (non-list-like)that are written almost completely like this.


 * The only thing I object to is the wording that implies all twelve step groups are addiction recovery groups, which is not true. There's also some that are difficult to categorize such as LDS Family Services, which uses the Twelve Steps but not the Twelve Traditions, etc. There's also a question about whether or not compulsive eating is a kind of substance abuse, and the "addiction-ness" of sex and all that. But I'm not really up for a fight at the moment.


 * Just watch the red links. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Craig - Are you saying I use too many red links? If the wording might imply that all 12-Step groups are addiction recovery groups, I have made a mistake and welcome your correction of that. You are obviously aware that AA (the first such group) and most of its spin offs were addiction recovery groups and that the addition of applying the 12-Steps to almost every conceivable problem that humans face is a recent (and in my opinion unfortunate) phenomenon. But this is not a place for opinions. The facts are likely already in WikiP and I'm just too lazy and uninterested in 12-Step history to do that work. Let some 12-Stepper do it. They have already produced copious verbage on the subject. As to LDS - I didn't want to start another battle, but it should not be listed there at all, unless you are going to list every agency that provides AODA help. It appears to be advertising that was snuck in.I can (but won't bother to) show you several other such groups that the SAMHSA "resources - self-phelp" web site lists which are just local groups that had the time to submit their names to what other wise is a list of national (and so NOTABLE) self-help resources. If it didn't believe that my changes would anger someone or other, I'd do the research and catagorize (with citations)all of the listed groups. It seems only consistent (is there a rule about being CONSISTENT?) to provide a page of any group noted on the list, else they lack noteability and should not be listed at all. Thanks for your feedback. I have not viewed the page yet, but it will be nice to see an undeleted, though perhaps further edited, page when I get there.Henrysteinberger (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not angry. :) The SMART Recovery article is also looking very good.


 * With the red links, a lot of times what will happen is that they're red because they're using a little different capitalization or other variation than the name of the article. So you need to do something like this psychoanalytic . If there isn't an article for the thing you're trying to wikify, and you can show it's notability, it's usually best not to introduce red links, but just to write a stub. Alternatively you can WP:REQUEST the article. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Addiction Recovery Groups, et. al.
Hey -- I would still like to collaborate on some of these articles if you're up for it. There is now an article for each group on the Addiction recovery groups list. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Scarpy - I want to continue to work with you on Addidction Recovery Groups with you as you suggested back in Feb. '09. I want to thank you for guiding that page such that I see that the basic division between 12-step and non-12-step was finally included - giving me a sense of accomplishment I rarely feel on Wikipedia.

I fear I'll never read all the instruction (is there somewhere to download a hard copy or a Wikipedia for Dummies that I can pick up?) so that I know how to do this. (e.g. I had to copy and paste the | sign because I don't know how to find it on my keyboard.)

So here's an idea that might be useful, but I have no idea how to work it into the Wiki structure of an article. Perhaps just dividing the groups on the Addiction Recovery Groups page into 12-step and non-12-step doesn't quite sort things in the most useful way. The key idea with 12-step recovery seems to be getting straight and sober (recovering) via a "spiritual awakening" thought the active ingredient for many folks is the mutual support and they ignore the religious and spiritual aspects.

A key divider within the non-12-step groups that gets lost in the current scheme is that some of those groups are clearly "secular" (or for WFS the "spiritual" element is not central or so clearly tied to a required "spiritual awakening" - while other non-12-step groups while NOT 12-step are not secular either (scientology? pagan recovery?) just non-traditional or not Christian (most folks admit that AA 12-step is Jesus oriented even if they leave the name out - read Bill Wilson's introduction to AA (the Big Book). SO what can be done?

My other question (big segue) is how do I get listed as a person interested in writing for the film section besides putting: on my talk page (which I have not yet attempted? I wanted to add to the Cannibalism in Cinema (called by wiki: Cannibal (ism?) films) and put forward as only a horror genre, whereas I have a list of comedies, dramas, histories, etc. that all involve cannibalism and are not Italian horror films. How do I get it in there?Henrysteinberger (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

cannibal films - additions that are not horror and how to -
Henrysteinberger so first of all, is this where I put this notice and if not here, where?

Second, how do I add my list to something that I think should be: Cannibalism in Movies or films, but not what it is now I'd like to add: Cannibalism in movies

Eating Raul Delicatessan (which I saw noted in another stub linked to the main page - but not noting that it is French) Parents Soilent Green The cook, the thief, his wife and her lover Silence of the Lambs Fried Green Tomatoes Alive Keep the River on the Left Rocky Horror Picture Show - ("What Meatloaf again" quoted when they see Eddy being served up) Sweeny Todd

and two I have not yet seen or explored: The 13th Warrior The Eaters of the Dead

thanks for your helpHenrysteinberger (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for February has been published.  March's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter
The March 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter
The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter
The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter
The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter
The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter
The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Voting
The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter
The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter
The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Atheism - should link to apostasy when considering number of atheists
As per the wiki article: Atheism - shouldn't the section addressing the question of how many self-professed atheists are in world make some internal reference to the wiki page on Apostasy and the severe penalties inflicted on self-prefessed atheists in many countries? Just working the word Apostasy in the the article might help make that information more open to critical evaluation.Henrysteinberger (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Synagogues in Wisconsin - an orphan needing adoption
Hey, I adopted this orphan but it still says: "Madison - barely begun" so who checks these things. I have updated it with reference to the synagogues' web pages giving affiliations and history. So what else needs to be done? Is edited the page, but I'm not sure who else cares. Could someone drop me a note please. Henrysteinberger (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This orphan could be easily updated for Madison WI. http://www.bethisraelcenter.org/about-us/history gives the history of Beth Israel Center (not listed) nor are any of the synagogues (there are four congregations, three with synagogues). So, how do I find coverage outside of their listings on the internet and other internal sources. I can also offer some history (see the web location noted earlier) but I have no idea how to edit that page.Henrysteinberger (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Marty Mann page missing Father Martin hyperlink at the bottom under People
Not sure who reads "talk" but as I still lack the skills to add a hyper link, I'm hoping that someone will see this message and add the hyperlink between Marty Mann and Father Martin. The AA page should also link to both, and as far as I've read, it does not.

BTW, I use Wiki to educate my clients, so I appreciate when the pages are accurate and include multiple view points as well as appropriate links between pages. Thanks.Henrysteinberger (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)