User talk:Pete318
Your recent edits
[edit]Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Posttraumatic stress disorder and "Catch-22"
[edit]You're back! Enjoyed your comments about keeping things in the right category, if I may put it that way. Makes sense, to me, at least. (By the way, I wasn't the one who archived your Catch-22 talk topic.)
The trouble I have with "pop culture" is that a lot of it is self-absorbed chatter. The other problem is its proponents seem not to grasp that it is a subject like any other - say, 18th century water delivery systems. There's data, then there's analysis. They don't understand the distinction. By analogy, what would be interesting about 18th century water delivery systems would not be a list of where they were and who build them, but rather what they mean - what we can infer from them about the larger culture and its dynamics.
The pop culture stuff having to do with PTSD, which I deleted, offered NOTHING at all about what it all means. It was merely a list of pop culture data points. So what? Worthless, I think. I have called, and continue to call, for good secondary references, which would use these data points to makes SENSE of the subject. I'm still waiting... Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I hadn't checked my own Talk page until recently(!!). Sorry.
I have branched over to the article Talk:Reinforcement [1] as I review my old Psych Text.
Trolling, trolling, no nibbles....
Reinforcement terminology can be a little ambiguous with the postive/negative adjectives. Similarly, in Control systems (both physical and life sciences(homeostasis)) the concepts of positive and negative feedback takes a little focus to understand. "Negative" feedback is the most stable.... go figure!
Anyway about your about 18th century water delivery systems...... careful they (analogies) don't always hold water - couldn't resist! If I understand your point, perhaps one could go back further and discuss (some) of the water delivery systems for the Romans.... they used lead pipes. In that case the technical detail (Pb) actually precipitated the negative effect on that society via a medical complication. This in spite of the positive effect of clean (but contaminated) central water supply.
My Psych review has stalled lately. I had just discovered that the service manager at work, who insisted on controlling HR duties also has a Psych. degree!! He would send over summer part timers but we would not see resumes, do interviews etc. Some were ok, some were fish out of water. I am not sure what to worry about most - was he using his Psych skills or not??!
Thanks for the note.
later,
18:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Proper use of Talk pages
[edit]Hi, In reply to your comments at TALK:Global warming, the talk page is not an acceptable place for a general discussion of the topic. See WP:NOTFORUM. Instead we have specific talk page guidelines that say article talk pages are for exploring specific ideas to improve articles on the basis of what wikipedia definese as reliable sources. I agree with Nigelj's feedback posted after your comment at the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- A reliable source means more than just a footnote. The citer has to quote the article and discuss the logic of the content. These days, it seems, many contributers appear to just search the internet and find some page or ".pdf" document that agrees with their point and appears credible.
- In the old days when a publisher would plan for a printing of a text - especially an encyclopedia - the investor would have to set aside a great deal of money before printing. Whether the content was biased or reliable or not, at least the editors had to make sure that it was exactly what they wanted to say - spelling, syntax and grammer included. Many readers may not follow the logic behind the text anyway - make it readable to as many as possible - sell the books!
- Wiki - aims(?) to do this but how can it without discussion. The Talk Page is the only utility that facilitates this - rules or not?
- All of my comments were thought out and challenged the logic of the section of the article. "Green" sources of energy may not contribute to Greenhouses Gases in the atmosphere but do(apparently) artifically generate more heat transfer which, logically, would contribute to global warming - not as much a those that produce CO2 as well (obviously! - footnote or not) but still some.
- If my logic had any basis, then say - politely - ".... interesting point Pete318 - can you track down a specific reference for that point. Check back maybe another poster can find one...."
- The rebuttal comment was simply ignorant. If the poster had actually read it he/she may have noted - "....that the caption cited from the Nuclear Power article is not referenced!!! and - horrors - it is in the ARTICLE not the TALK Page!!!.....".
- Most of my other points come from standard principles in textbooks, but it is a discussion of logic. This ("your"(plural)) page has a flaw in logic with both the Geothermal and Nuclear Power context!
- Thank you for taking the time to politely reply. However I am learning from my experience with wiki that logic is not absolute. If a participant becomes abrupt or rude that is worse than being them being inaccurate - bail out of the Talk page! Nice of you, but you cannot repair the insult by proxy. Let the posters jealous of their cyper-turf have their day.
- He/she probably meant no offence, none taken - just annoyed. Thanks again.
- [Maybe have a format: ARTICLE TALK FORUM - go to a forum with your point first - if it makes it past there go to Talk with the cited details - then agree on the ARTICLE content?]