User talk:Elplatt

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Elplatt: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Ksbrown^talk 19:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Stubs

Thanks for creating the stubs for Alcohol dependence and Alcohol abuse. If possible please use a more specific stub tag than {{stub}}. For these two articles I have used {{Mental-health-stub}} as I believe that it is the most appropriate. However, if you are creating stubs you know more about the subject than we do stub sorting. To help you find the right stub tag there is a list at WP:WSS/ST. Again, welcome and don't hesitate to ask me a question if you need to. Thank you. Ksbrown^talk 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Blanc beer

I appreciate that the user seemed to be quite a nusiance, but I don't see any real vandalism as such, just misguided page creation and cries for help. The one obviously unnacceptable edit came afer this, which could be seen as antagonistic, and even so it was not vandalism so much as a personal attack. We do have a policy, visible at WP:AGF, which tells us to assume good faith in instances like this.

Privately speaking, the chances are it was trolling and bad faith edits, but if you could be a bit friendlier initially it may make the difference between a committed vandal and a great editor.

Mind you, I'm a bit of a softie.... Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, thanks ever so much for the help you're doing fighting vandalism and (even better) contributing to articles. If I can be of any further help, please get in touch!

Dave 03:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation guidelines

Hi Elplatt- I've read the guidelines on references but am not clear about where I'm going wrong. Could you help me by clarifing. Thanks for your time and effort.David Justin 16:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elplat- Thanks for your help, which I greatly appreciate.David Justin 20:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disease theory of alcoholism

Hi Elplatt. Good work on the Theory section. It really needed improvement! I have made a few small further edits. I had a bit of trouble with the sentence "Alcoholism is caused by the continued consumption of alcoholic beverages", as the article argues that alcoholism is caused by a variety of genetic and environmental factors. How about something like "Alcoholism is triggered by the consumption of alcoholic bevereages", or maybe just deleting this sentence? AussieBoy (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Adult Children of Alcoholics

As we don't appear to see things the same way, I have listed this article at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion, much friendlier than us keep reverting each other! --Richhoncho (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

You appear to be engaging in an edit war on Children of alcoholics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Adult children of alcoholics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is unacceptable. The onus is on you, as the person seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Repeatedly reinserting the content is not part of that process. The rule is, Bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, others reverted, you now need to discuss, and not repeat the disputed edits until that discussion shows that there is consensus for inclusion. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Had you received any explicit warning here I would have blocked you now. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was coming here to say: I've replied to your request for assistance at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Please_help_with_edit_war. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guy. Thank you for warning rather than blocking immediately. I've been trying to follow WP policies every step of the way. How much of the discussion did you read? I would appreciate it if you would take a closer look at the entire discussion, as I feel I am acting in the spirit of WP and the other editors are not.

I have adressed the original concerns and left out material that the other editors rightly objected to. However, I feel that there are no legitimate complaints about the rest. The other editors are refusing to provide any policy rationale for their decision, making discussion impossible. Also, I have only re-added the material when discussion came to a halt, and at most once per day. Note that the material was in the article for a while before User:richhoncho removed it.

I believe the most relevant line from WP:CON says "Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome." By reverting edits and refusing to discuss the edit in terms of policy, I feel that the other editors involved are actively disrupting the inclusion of relevant, properly-cited material.

Please let me know what your opinion is and why. I will consider it carefully. If I still feel the material should be included, please let me know what the appropriate avenue to take is. Thank you. --Elplatt (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that sounds like wikilawyering to me. It's pretty clear that inclusion is disputed - strongly so - so for now the content stays out. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? WP:LAWYER gives 4 types of behavior, which one do you think I'm doing? I think there's a big difference between wikilawyering and basing my edits on policy rather than subjective opinions. --Elplatt (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

When accused of wikilawyering, it's generally not advisable to demand to see "chapter and verse" spelling out exactly what one has done wrong. I'm sure you can see why not. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. What, specifically, have I been doing that I should stop? --Elplatt (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying to add the disputed material. Seriously, that's what I think you should stop doing. Accept that consensus is against this addition and continue editing Wikipedia. If you feel that I need a policy or guideline page to back me up on this, I'm going to go with WP:TE, although perhaps WP:STICK is more appropriate. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Elplatt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Elplatt.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. Thank you.Toddst1 (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A question that needs to be asked

Are you related to Jerome J Platt? That would have a bearing on several discussions currently underway. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. No idea who that is. --Elplatt (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Ethnic_Cleansing_3O

Dear Elplatt:

Thank you for providing a third opinion. I have played a minor role in this discussion, but I thought that the fact that I do not really belong to any camp would make it useful to discuss matters. In the talk page I stated:

"If we are dealing with an alleged fact, we can try to find sources that support or do not support the alleged version. Labels are a different matter. If a source is sufficient for a label, then all one has to do is hunt for a source that uses the label; obviously, sources that do not use the label will not say explicitly that they are not doing so, but will simply use other labels instead. Thus, the system that works for facts cannot and will not work for labels. Feketekave (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)"

Let me reiterate this. You also state, under the heading of information given:

"In the case of actual ethnic cleansing, ignoring the label is just as bad as using it inappropriately."

I do not know whether this is your opinion or your statement of the opinion of other parties. In either case - is this really so? My impression is that labels are there for ease of navigation, not to provide a final verdict (by some impartial arbiters of truth) as to which of two binary categories an event falls into. If a label is being seen in this way by both sides of a discussion, then wouldn't that itself provide a good reason not to use it, and to stick with less controversial labels? We do not have a label called "Terrorism" at the bottom of the page on the Shining Path, for instance, though there isn't even much of a side claiming that the Shining Path cannot be called a terrorist movement. Feketekave (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Feketekave. I appreciate you taking the time to state your criticisms of my opinion in a polite and constructive manner. As I said in the talk page, it was based as much as possible on policy, but also on my own opinions, so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

I agree that one source is not sufficient for a label. It is also my understanding that labels are for ease of navigation rather than a final verdict (although I'll admit I'm not sure). So far, we seem to agree on these things.

The reason I say "ignoring the label is just as bad as using it inappropriately" is that if it isn't clear, from a broad study of the sources, whether the label applies or not, there is a controversy related to the label, and that in itself makes it relevant. However, in this particular article I think that it could go either way. It may be the case that the label is really a stretch, or there may be notable arguments on both sides. Someone needs to take a balanced look at the sources and hopefully find a neutral discussion of whether or not the "ethnic cleansing" label applies to the situation. So in other words, the only reason I suggested keeping the label was because it was the previous consensus, which is why I suggested keeping the NPOV box and looking into the matter further.

Does that response help at all? The article seems like a minefield, and I certainly don't mean to complicate the issue. Anyway, once again, it's only an opinion, provided with the hope of generating constructive discussion between the existing editors, not a binding ruling of any sort. --Elplatt (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)