User talk:R Lowry

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hi, thanks for the welcome, and also for the links. I'll keep those handy for if (when) I get lost. I think I probably will stick around. I like what I've seen so far. Cheers, --Rlowry

Great! I'm glad to hear that. --mav

Hi there! You didn't waste any time promoting Wolves, did you? :) I was just logging on when the final whistle blew... Arwel 16:03 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, at 3-0 with ten minutes to go I thought it was pretty well wrapped up! I'm just glad that awful Neil Warnock won't be able to employ his spoiling tactics in the Premiership next season... R Lowry 16:13 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi Rlowry, thanks for changing my comment on the Trade war over genetically modified food into a NPOV statement. It is sometimes hard to state something neutrally if emotions are involved. Thanks a lot, Fantasy 05:29 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know it's always a lot easier to see POV statements when they're made by other people. ;-) R Lowry 17:36 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good work cleaning up small copyedits and things in major articles, that kind of thing has more impact on credibility than most of the scientist types think. Hm. Glad someone with a humanities background is here as well to help balance. A list of ethicists just appeared but it probably needs vetting or more names. The list of ethics topics is also incomplete, a few searches and expansions of that list would do much good. Particularly for some people. EofT

Thanks for recording your appreciation: positive feedback always helps me to stay motivated. I imagine that new list could do with breaking down into sub-categories before it becomes anything like useful - any list that has L. Ron Hubbard rubbing shoulders with David Hume is probably so diverse as to be virtually useless. I'm not sure I know enough about the subject to start making those divisions, but maybe if no one else does I might have a go. R Lowry 18:01 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. Well I think the standard here is to avoid all such divisions since they are inherently contentious. For instance I have read both David Hume and L. Ron Hubbard and they have more in common than not. In particular Hubbard quite literally has formulas for ethical decisions, and has clearly had much influence. His followers abuse his doctrine probably less than those of Jesus. It would be a mess to try to distinguish ethical, historical and political from religious influence of Muhammad. Even with modern figures who made no claim to any divine insight, I think also it is very hard to say if a fellow like B. F. Skinner for instance represents a "person whose name has become synonymous with an ethical debate" (about free will say), or a theorist who made real contributions. One could also ask that about Josef Mengele, whose work is still a standard citation on hypothermia. That list is loaded with such dangers. So I would advise against that attempt, at least for now, and encourage you instead to try to balance it culturally by adding but not remving names. The list of ethics topics on the other hand is obviously very incomplete, and needs work, but likewise would be hard to divide. A recent suggestion to split off business ethics is interesting, and to deal with business philosophy more seriously. I think these might be areas that need a humanist's touch. Just my opinion. Also the esteemed Carol Moore just added a note in Talk: re: her own work, so, perhaps we should focus on good coverage of controversial figures active on the net, to attract them here. Then we could see some real improvements in some of the more difficult articles.EofT

Yes, I see what you mean about the difficulty of making subdivisions. I'm glad I didn't just dive in without waiting for advice (my favoured method). Next time I get the chance I'll have a scout around for articles that can be added to the other list you mention. Cheers, R Lowry 18:05 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hello! I couldn't find the sentence you changed/removed in the Peter Wessel Zapffe article. I'm the n00b behind it, so I just wanted to know what was wrong/unnecessary. Sigg3.net 00:20 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi. The sentence that I removed was at the end and ran, in full...

In About the Tragedy (1941) Zapffe tries to justify his theories which are first presented through Den sidste Messias (1933).

... which to me was just a rewording of the first paragraph. The article does look a bit bare at the end now, though, I have to admit. R Lowry 18:13 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm still working on his treatise, and when I'm done I'll try to write something on his biosophy. Sigg3.net 19:17 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok. I've added a link to biosophy in the Zapffe article, and look forward to learning more about it. ;-) R Lowry

Hi R. Lowry:

Thanks for rewriting my paragraphs on the ACLU. I first tried to do it in one paragraph, but it was too condensed. You managed to do it so it's very readable. I'm extremely impressed. It is educational and refreshing to have someone improve your writing. I can see you were really learning how to write well in your literature courses while I was learning accounting. I can see the difference in our writing skills.

I haven't registered for Wikipedia because I was doing a search on Google, and just happened to see that article on the ACLU, and then I saw that Wikipedia allows additions. So I tried my hand at it. This turned out to be an educational experience for me.

This writing is in the section of the article that criticizes the ACLU. Your second edit softened the criticism more than I would have liked, but the main point is still in the upper paragraph.

Thanks again for improving my writing. 15 July, 2003. Norm

Hello Norm. I'm glad you didn't mind my changes. Actually, I was trying to get back to the more condensed form you used in your first edit, which on the whole I preferred. I included the second paragraph because even-handedness in article-writing is something they're big about on this website. One key principle on Wikipedia, is "to write about what people believe, rather than what is so" - that is, articles shouldn't be seen to be taking sides on a subject, but rather to be presenting a range of viewpoints relating to that subject. The ACLU may or may not be right to say that the death penalty contravenes the US Constitution (I don't know enough about the US Constitution, myself, to be able to say one way or the other), but if there is a criticism of their stance then it needs to be balanced with an explanation of their reasons for taking the stance.

With any luck, now that second paragraph is there in simple form, someone else will come along eventually and flesh it out a bit (hopefully someone who knows a bit more about the subject than I do ;-) ). That's what Wikipedia is all about.

Thanks for writing, R Lowry 23:45 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

R Lowry:

The more I see what you've written, the better I like it. The second paragraph gives the ACLU's justification for going against the Supreme Court's decision. It definitely makes a more NPOV.

I'm am so tickled at the results of this interaction, that I registered as Norm2, and will follow the changes to several pages. Thanks for helping me realize that there are better writers than me.

I don't know if this is the proper way to communicate with the authors here, but it's the only way I know at this time.

Norm July 16, 2003

Well, that's great if you've decided to join up. Let me be the first to welcome you to Wikipedia!

As far as I can tell, User Talk pages (like this one) are the usual place for general discussion like this. Wikipedians tend to frown on discussion crowding article talk pages, if it doesn't directly concern the article itself. So I think you got that right.

btw... I noticed on your user page you mentioned problems navigating. It's true this site isn't always the easiest to get around. But I imagine a site map would be a bit difficult to produce for something which is constantly shifting its boundaries - it presupposes an element of control over things which no one person really has here. Probably the closest things available are: firstly, the Main Page, which breaks down the Encyclopaedia and the Community into broad general categories; and, secondly, the Help button in the top right hand corner of the page which gives general advice. Hope this helps, R Lowry 01:35 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi R. Lowry. Would you see if you can improve the changes I made to the volleyball page. I love to learn from from your improvements. Thanks...Norm2 23:30 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

With your obvious interest in football, would you mind doing me a favour and taking look at football (unqualified) for obvious stupidsms? I recently moved a lot of material from History of football which I'd written some time ago and added more info, it could do with another pair of eyes looking over it. Mintguy (T) 19:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The football article contains a lot of info that is new to me, so I can't really check it for factual errors, but I'll be glad to check through it for typos, etc, when I get a chance. The Football (soccer) article might also be worth having a look at sometime. R Lowry 20:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the crest, I'm pretty new to here and I didn't have a lot of free time so I couldn't edit the crest down. I figured someone would do it or I would get free time sometime --Josquius 19:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's okay, I didn't mean "helluva crest" in a harsh way. Besides, it gave me a chance to learn how to size pictures, which is something I haven't done before on Wikipedia. R Lowry 22:13, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Another point: why did you redirect Peterborough United F.C. to Peterborough United? Football clubs are usually known on Wikipedia by their full name (ie, with the F.C. part). Anyhow, I've undone the redirect. R Lowry 22:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)