This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi all. I have a suggestion for the citation style for Wikiproject Philosophy. How about we use the Cite.php and all, except take up the suggestion that we "Consider maintaining a separate bibliography/references section, then just the page number and book name can be given in each note, following Wikipedia:Citing sources." This is from Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style_recommendations. That way we stick with the general Wikipedia guideline of using Cite.php and a notes section for citations, but we also keep a references section that is common to the citation style in academic philosophy. Also, that way editors who are used to the standard philosophy style of citing can simply take their in-text citations and make them notes. Furthermore, it is nice for readers to have a listing of all the references, especially if they are looking for further reading.
Here's even a proposed wording for the Wikiproject Philosophy citation guidelines:
Each philosophy article should contain two sections at the bottom of the article concerning citations and references. The first section should have the heading "Notes" and the second section should have the heading "References and further reading".
The Notes section should contain the following code:
Each reference within the text, then, is made with the reference tag (<ref></ref>) and should defer to the sources in the "References and further readings" section. See Methodic doubt as an example.
The References and further reading section should resemble the standard references section that is typical of academic philosophy books and articles, which is a sort of cross between the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Chicago (or Turabian) citation styles. Again, see Methodic doubt as an example.
Okay, that's it. Just an idea that I think would work well. - Jaymay 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose yet another guideline regarding citations for philosophy articles: Any time that a person is quoted, or paraphrased, or a sentence of the general form "So-and-so has argued/believed/thought/said X" appears it should be explicitely referenced to a specific philosopher from a book, article, magazine, speech, or whatever (with appropriate page numbers and whatnot). I've come across way too many articles recently that have unattributed quotes or paraphrases in them (for example: [1]), and I think we all can do better regarding that. - Seth Mahoney 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Experts in, say, philosophy of science can then check and see if statement Y attributed to Harty Field in book C, or what have you, is accurate or just plain nonsense. Of course, it will still end to being one or two people having to rewrite all the junk that is already out there. I don't know. Just a thought.-- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've unilaterally chosen Cite.php systemas the standard for philosophy articles. It is cited as the preferred method in Wikipedia:Citing sources; but if there are strong objections, let's talk about it here.... Banno 06:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I can talk about this here, but it has been banned over on the FAC review page and on other pages to refer to the "anomolous" Putnam FAC. Very conventient, eh?? Anyway, here's another idea that just struck me as (possibly) useful for the philosophy project. How about a manual of style for philosophy articles or adding a section to current MOS devoted to philosophy? As an example, there is a section devoted speficifically to medicine. Some of the compliants about "prose" that came up in the Putnam debacle were about such nonsensical matters as "italics are not used in text", "first-person locutions are non-Encyclopedic", "questions are non-encyclopedic and generate doubt in the reader", etc., etc.. We all know these thing ara acceptable practice in Philosophy writing. So why did I have only Dbuckner and Sam Clarke to back me up on this. We should be able to point to a page that says "how to copyedit and reveiw philosophy articles." It would be a long project, but it might head off a great deal of BS. -- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm tickled by the fact that at present there are no articles in Category:Unsolved problems in philosophy. I am tempted to put the whole Category:Philosophy in there. -- KSchutte 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I tried to find a Template:Wikiproject_Philosophy to put a userbox in my userpage, and I didn't find it. Is it somewhere? Louie 20:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The goals are a mess.
Larry Sanger rightly points to the low quality of the philosophy articles here in comparison to other on-line resources [2].
At present the gaols of the project are set as:
1. To make the first visit of newcomers to the subject of Philosophy on Wikipedia enjoyable and rewarding, so that they want to return
2. To make it easy and enjoyable for users to find the philosophical issues and answers they are looking for
3. To improve the overall coverage of philosophy on Wikipedia, starting at the top:
4. To build a community of philosophically-minded contributors
5. To provide guidelines for writing philosophical articles for the 'pedia
In the first edition, the aims set by Adam Conover [3] were:
1. To identify those areas of philosophy which lack sufficient coverage on the 'pedia.
2. To improve those articles which need help.
3. To create a general map of the philosophical articles and subjects on the 'pedia, and link the articles together accordingly.
4. To serve as a nexus and discussion area for philosophically-inclined contributors.
The original set is the better. The philosophy articles should be accurate and rigorous first, accessible second. Enjoyable is just a bonus. Navigation tools are a minor thing; the main form of navigation should be the click able links within the text of the article. Coverage is not as important as rigour.
The goals need modification. Banno 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there scope for an internal peer review process?
Several peer review processes already exist:
for example.
Perhaps we could launch a peer review process amongst the members of this project. Banno 12:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem encountered by philosophy articles was neatly summed up by owl232: Mathematics articles may be more reliable because people who don't know mathematics usually recognize that fact and don't feel tempted to write about it anyway.
But everyone thinks they can do a little philosophy. Banno 21:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see what doing philosophy has to do with writing for an encyclopedia of philosophy. If other disciplines can record the ideas presented by thinkers in the field, why is this a problem for recording the ideas of philosophers? I have been mucking about in wikiland for about a month now - while I feel that I have the responsibility to make corrections when I have knowledge in an area (and time), I don't think I can make significant contributions to topics of specialization due to conflict of interest (I write for an academic encyclopedia and do original research). I'm sure other academics avoid wikipedia for similar reasons, but mostly due to lack of time and the priority of publishing works of original research over anonymous contributions. I'm seeing how mucky this entire project is without some guidance from the experienced (in academia or years of independent study). How can a peer review process be initiated if you have no idea who are the peers? I'm sure this has been asked many times before. Zeusnoos 00:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
My only comments on this score are that:
I've suggested that Definition of philosophy be merged with Metaphilosophy. I welcome the project's thoughts on this. Lucidish 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Further up, Lucidish says that because philosophers argue, there will never be any consensus about the philosophy page. Nonsense. Anyone with a bit of training in the subject will agree about many things with others who have even the slightest amount of training. They will disagree about the difficult and subtle things, but Wikipedia isn't about that. They will agree, for instance, that philosophy is not alchemy or astrology. I've discussed this problem with other professional philosophers here - Mel Ititis e.g. who left this project in disgust some time ago. Everyone is agreed that the problem is the presence of some very vocal and persistent but sadly misinformed and untrained nutters who imagine that anyone can write philosophy. Mel Ititis' view is that philosophy is inherently unsuited to this medium, and says we should leave it at that. I agree, in that I haven't written or edited anything here for months, and will not until the policy is changed. Dbuckner 12:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
On what this means (with a reference to Wikipedia) see this article by Brandon Watson (who is a very good philosopher indeed). Dbuckner 12:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
ient source, in this case, is professional incompetence). This would be especially clear if you had read my diagnosis of the problem in the "goals and rigour" section. The statement, "I never objected to this at all", is incorrect, though I can only fault you for not having a memory which stretches back a third of a year. I have linked to the appropriate section recently on the Philosophy talk page, so I'm not sure how you missed it. Here are direct links, in the form of a timeline:
Some of you people don't even bother to take a moment to do a tiny bit of research to correct ridiciously obvious errors after you're informed that they're errors: "deflationay theory is just another robust theory (whatever that means)"... this is not a question of POV. It's wrong!! -- Lacatosias 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
is nonsense. I predicted that you would think as much in my original writing of the doctrine, which may be found a few sections up. I now am interested in what others think about it, especially those who are not deadset against the prospect of Wikipedia improving itself.
The online philosophy conference will take place in May
This may be of interest to the WikiProject. -- Ancheta Wis 11:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I have sent an email to Ned Block asking him if he would be interested in contributing to the improvement of the philosophy articles on the Wikipedia. He has not responded to my importunings. I wonder why?-- Lacatosias 13:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I've announced bounties on three philosophy related articles: Nyaya, Anekantavada and Panini. Please help support wikipedia by improving these articles to featured status. deeptrivia ( talk) 05:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Do philosophers really work on a "Theory of Everything"? Do they really term it as such? Are there really articles by professional philosophers in peer-reviewed philosophy journals about this putative philosophical task? There is a presently a vague article that has no references, no quotes, no sources, and no specifics. The precise topic itself is not well-defined. I suspect that this isn't a real philosophy article, but rather a title devised by someone with "physics envy" (sorry for the pun.) See Theory_of_everything_(philosophy). RK 19:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
at List of publications in philosophy, there is an ongoing editwar of inclusion/exclusion of one of rand's texts that clearly doesn't fit on the list, please comment or expand the list with enough other popular texts so the rand text would be appropriate.-- Buridan 12:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone considered creating audio "this is how its pronounced" files for some of the more difficult to pronounce philosophers? It was suggested on Talk:Søren Kierkegaard, and it occured to me that there are quite a few philosophers whose names people (myself included) have no idea how to pronounce, and for many, if not most, users, IPA pronunciations don't help. The ones I can think of off the top of my head:
Feel free to add to the list if anyone thinks of any more. But more to the point, I'm wondering if this sort of thing is doable on Wikipedia, and if anyone is willing to create the audio files. - Smahoney 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the " key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your Philosophy/Religion WikiProject article table for articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 05:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hilary Putnam has commented on his bio/article which I wrote (about 70%) of a few months ago. "It is better than the Stanford Encylopedia article"..."flabbergasted"... "Obviously, this was written by experts", see Talk:Hilary Putnam. -- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello philosophers. I've put a suggested renovation of the (currently highly POV) article Justice on Talk:Justice. Comments actively desired. Cheers, -- Sam Clark 11:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The article Jerry Fodor is currently being considered (obviously unfavorably) as a possile featured article. Where are the philosophers (especially analytics) who have complimented me on the quality of this article? Obviously they are too busy quarreling and blabbering in their own narcissitic bubbles about what it means to be a fucking philopher, and other such matters, in the first place. The complaints have nothing to do with the content of the article, so it can't be that some people feel they don't know enough about Jerry Fodor to be able to try to help address the alleged problems. No, philosophers and philosophy students are to wrapped up in their own thought-bubbles and arguing over who knows more about what than whom to be able to cooperate effectively. Might this possible be the reason there are so few features articles in philosphy and that the philosophy project in general seems to be a total disaster? Just a thought. -- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Given Lacotosias's comments above, I wonder if I'm talking into a vacuum here, but I've requested peer review on the new version of Global justice I've been working on. Philosophers' comments welcome. On the JF article: can I just note that I think it's impressive stuff, and I regret that I didn't go and say so in support of its FA status. Actually, I was restrained by thinking that philosophy of mind is far outside my expertise. I'll jump in if there's a next time. Cheers, -- Sam Clark 10:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. And thanks for your editing work on Global Justice. Cheers, -- Sam Clark 12:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi all. I have a suggestion for the citation style for Wikiproject Philosophy. How about we use the Cite.php and all, except take up the suggestion that we "Consider maintaining a separate bibliography/references section, then just the page number and book name can be given in each note, following Wikipedia:Citing sources." This is from Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style_recommendations. That way we stick with the general Wikipedia guideline of using Cite.php and a notes section for citations, but we also keep a references section that is common to the citation style in academic philosophy. Also, that way editors who are used to the standard philosophy style of citing can simply take their in-text citations and make them notes. Furthermore, it is nice for readers to have a listing of all the references, especially if they are looking for further reading.
Here's even a proposed wording for the Wikiproject Philosophy citation guidelines:
Each philosophy article should contain two sections at the bottom of the article concerning citations and references. The first section should have the heading "Notes" and the second section should have the heading "References and further reading".
The Notes section should contain the following code:
Each reference within the text, then, is made with the reference tag (<ref></ref>) and should defer to the sources in the "References and further readings" section. See Methodic doubt as an example.
The References and further reading section should resemble the standard references section that is typical of academic philosophy books and articles, which is a sort of cross between the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Chicago (or Turabian) citation styles. Again, see Methodic doubt as an example.
Okay, that's it. Just an idea that I think would work well. - Jaymay 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose yet another guideline regarding citations for philosophy articles: Any time that a person is quoted, or paraphrased, or a sentence of the general form "So-and-so has argued/believed/thought/said X" appears it should be explicitely referenced to a specific philosopher from a book, article, magazine, speech, or whatever (with appropriate page numbers and whatnot). I've come across way too many articles recently that have unattributed quotes or paraphrases in them (for example: [1]), and I think we all can do better regarding that. - Seth Mahoney 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Experts in, say, philosophy of science can then check and see if statement Y attributed to Harty Field in book C, or what have you, is accurate or just plain nonsense. Of course, it will still end to being one or two people having to rewrite all the junk that is already out there. I don't know. Just a thought.-- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've unilaterally chosen Cite.php systemas the standard for philosophy articles. It is cited as the preferred method in Wikipedia:Citing sources; but if there are strong objections, let's talk about it here.... Banno 06:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I can talk about this here, but it has been banned over on the FAC review page and on other pages to refer to the "anomolous" Putnam FAC. Very conventient, eh?? Anyway, here's another idea that just struck me as (possibly) useful for the philosophy project. How about a manual of style for philosophy articles or adding a section to current MOS devoted to philosophy? As an example, there is a section devoted speficifically to medicine. Some of the compliants about "prose" that came up in the Putnam debacle were about such nonsensical matters as "italics are not used in text", "first-person locutions are non-Encyclopedic", "questions are non-encyclopedic and generate doubt in the reader", etc., etc.. We all know these thing ara acceptable practice in Philosophy writing. So why did I have only Dbuckner and Sam Clarke to back me up on this. We should be able to point to a page that says "how to copyedit and reveiw philosophy articles." It would be a long project, but it might head off a great deal of BS. -- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm tickled by the fact that at present there are no articles in Category:Unsolved problems in philosophy. I am tempted to put the whole Category:Philosophy in there. -- KSchutte 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I tried to find a Template:Wikiproject_Philosophy to put a userbox in my userpage, and I didn't find it. Is it somewhere? Louie 20:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The goals are a mess.
Larry Sanger rightly points to the low quality of the philosophy articles here in comparison to other on-line resources [2].
At present the gaols of the project are set as:
1. To make the first visit of newcomers to the subject of Philosophy on Wikipedia enjoyable and rewarding, so that they want to return
2. To make it easy and enjoyable for users to find the philosophical issues and answers they are looking for
3. To improve the overall coverage of philosophy on Wikipedia, starting at the top:
4. To build a community of philosophically-minded contributors
5. To provide guidelines for writing philosophical articles for the 'pedia
In the first edition, the aims set by Adam Conover [3] were:
1. To identify those areas of philosophy which lack sufficient coverage on the 'pedia.
2. To improve those articles which need help.
3. To create a general map of the philosophical articles and subjects on the 'pedia, and link the articles together accordingly.
4. To serve as a nexus and discussion area for philosophically-inclined contributors.
The original set is the better. The philosophy articles should be accurate and rigorous first, accessible second. Enjoyable is just a bonus. Navigation tools are a minor thing; the main form of navigation should be the click able links within the text of the article. Coverage is not as important as rigour.
The goals need modification. Banno 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there scope for an internal peer review process?
Several peer review processes already exist:
for example.
Perhaps we could launch a peer review process amongst the members of this project. Banno 12:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem encountered by philosophy articles was neatly summed up by owl232: Mathematics articles may be more reliable because people who don't know mathematics usually recognize that fact and don't feel tempted to write about it anyway.
But everyone thinks they can do a little philosophy. Banno 21:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see what doing philosophy has to do with writing for an encyclopedia of philosophy. If other disciplines can record the ideas presented by thinkers in the field, why is this a problem for recording the ideas of philosophers? I have been mucking about in wikiland for about a month now - while I feel that I have the responsibility to make corrections when I have knowledge in an area (and time), I don't think I can make significant contributions to topics of specialization due to conflict of interest (I write for an academic encyclopedia and do original research). I'm sure other academics avoid wikipedia for similar reasons, but mostly due to lack of time and the priority of publishing works of original research over anonymous contributions. I'm seeing how mucky this entire project is without some guidance from the experienced (in academia or years of independent study). How can a peer review process be initiated if you have no idea who are the peers? I'm sure this has been asked many times before. Zeusnoos 00:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
My only comments on this score are that:
I've suggested that Definition of philosophy be merged with Metaphilosophy. I welcome the project's thoughts on this. Lucidish 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Further up, Lucidish says that because philosophers argue, there will never be any consensus about the philosophy page. Nonsense. Anyone with a bit of training in the subject will agree about many things with others who have even the slightest amount of training. They will disagree about the difficult and subtle things, but Wikipedia isn't about that. They will agree, for instance, that philosophy is not alchemy or astrology. I've discussed this problem with other professional philosophers here - Mel Ititis e.g. who left this project in disgust some time ago. Everyone is agreed that the problem is the presence of some very vocal and persistent but sadly misinformed and untrained nutters who imagine that anyone can write philosophy. Mel Ititis' view is that philosophy is inherently unsuited to this medium, and says we should leave it at that. I agree, in that I haven't written or edited anything here for months, and will not until the policy is changed. Dbuckner 12:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
On what this means (with a reference to Wikipedia) see this article by Brandon Watson (who is a very good philosopher indeed). Dbuckner 12:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
ient source, in this case, is professional incompetence). This would be especially clear if you had read my diagnosis of the problem in the "goals and rigour" section. The statement, "I never objected to this at all", is incorrect, though I can only fault you for not having a memory which stretches back a third of a year. I have linked to the appropriate section recently on the Philosophy talk page, so I'm not sure how you missed it. Here are direct links, in the form of a timeline:
Some of you people don't even bother to take a moment to do a tiny bit of research to correct ridiciously obvious errors after you're informed that they're errors: "deflationay theory is just another robust theory (whatever that means)"... this is not a question of POV. It's wrong!! -- Lacatosias 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
is nonsense. I predicted that you would think as much in my original writing of the doctrine, which may be found a few sections up. I now am interested in what others think about it, especially those who are not deadset against the prospect of Wikipedia improving itself.
The online philosophy conference will take place in May
This may be of interest to the WikiProject. -- Ancheta Wis 11:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I have sent an email to Ned Block asking him if he would be interested in contributing to the improvement of the philosophy articles on the Wikipedia. He has not responded to my importunings. I wonder why?-- Lacatosias 13:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I've announced bounties on three philosophy related articles: Nyaya, Anekantavada and Panini. Please help support wikipedia by improving these articles to featured status. deeptrivia ( talk) 05:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Do philosophers really work on a "Theory of Everything"? Do they really term it as such? Are there really articles by professional philosophers in peer-reviewed philosophy journals about this putative philosophical task? There is a presently a vague article that has no references, no quotes, no sources, and no specifics. The precise topic itself is not well-defined. I suspect that this isn't a real philosophy article, but rather a title devised by someone with "physics envy" (sorry for the pun.) See Theory_of_everything_(philosophy). RK 19:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
at List of publications in philosophy, there is an ongoing editwar of inclusion/exclusion of one of rand's texts that clearly doesn't fit on the list, please comment or expand the list with enough other popular texts so the rand text would be appropriate.-- Buridan 12:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone considered creating audio "this is how its pronounced" files for some of the more difficult to pronounce philosophers? It was suggested on Talk:Søren Kierkegaard, and it occured to me that there are quite a few philosophers whose names people (myself included) have no idea how to pronounce, and for many, if not most, users, IPA pronunciations don't help. The ones I can think of off the top of my head:
Feel free to add to the list if anyone thinks of any more. But more to the point, I'm wondering if this sort of thing is doable on Wikipedia, and if anyone is willing to create the audio files. - Smahoney 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the " key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your Philosophy/Religion WikiProject article table for articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 05:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hilary Putnam has commented on his bio/article which I wrote (about 70%) of a few months ago. "It is better than the Stanford Encylopedia article"..."flabbergasted"... "Obviously, this was written by experts", see Talk:Hilary Putnam. -- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello philosophers. I've put a suggested renovation of the (currently highly POV) article Justice on Talk:Justice. Comments actively desired. Cheers, -- Sam Clark 11:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The article Jerry Fodor is currently being considered (obviously unfavorably) as a possile featured article. Where are the philosophers (especially analytics) who have complimented me on the quality of this article? Obviously they are too busy quarreling and blabbering in their own narcissitic bubbles about what it means to be a fucking philopher, and other such matters, in the first place. The complaints have nothing to do with the content of the article, so it can't be that some people feel they don't know enough about Jerry Fodor to be able to try to help address the alleged problems. No, philosophers and philosophy students are to wrapped up in their own thought-bubbles and arguing over who knows more about what than whom to be able to cooperate effectively. Might this possible be the reason there are so few features articles in philosphy and that the philosophy project in general seems to be a total disaster? Just a thought. -- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Given Lacotosias's comments above, I wonder if I'm talking into a vacuum here, but I've requested peer review on the new version of Global justice I've been working on. Philosophers' comments welcome. On the JF article: can I just note that I think it's impressive stuff, and I regret that I didn't go and say so in support of its FA status. Actually, I was restrained by thinking that philosophy of mind is far outside my expertise. I'll jump in if there's a next time. Cheers, -- Sam Clark 10:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. And thanks for your editing work on Global Justice. Cheers, -- Sam Clark 12:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)