User talk:S Marshall/Archive5

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian-Azerbaijanis Youth Organization (NAYO)

your "comment" here appears to be a vote for keep but you have not marked it as such...I am correct? LibStar (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a comment, not a !vote. I have not !voted on that article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thrikkunnathu Seminary

see this and the article. WHat should I do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Thrikkunnathu_Seminary

--ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Lijujacobk.

Please don't do anything now. I've brought the matter to the attention of an administrator. I hope that they will decide to protect the page to prevent any further editing until there has been a full and proper discussion on the talk page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: The admin has protected a short, neutral version of the page. This means that only admins can edit it at the moment. The admin will unprotect the page when a talk-page consensus has been reached about what the content of the article should be.

If you have any further difficulty in reaching a policy-based consensus, please notify me here and I will try to help you.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support, I have yet to review your RfA, but am going to. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Just pinging you, in case you miss my follow up question. Sorry for the volume of them--they're questions I began collecting on my subpage because I'd begun thinking, "I want to ask them all at RFA", but I'd always forget. rootology (C)(T) 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I tagged you with one last follow up. It is the last one, I promise. rootology (C)(T) 23:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Category Sorting.

I would be interested in category sorting, but I don't know the first thing about it or what it even is? Can you help me get started? Thanks. GandalftheWise : Talk Page 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure.

After you've installed Hotcat, when you look at the bottom of this page, you should be able to see a button that says:

Categories: (+)

If you click on the (+), a box will come up. You'll find you have the option to add this page to various categories. But please don't do this with my talk page.

If you go to an article, say, George W. Bush, you'll see that he fits into LOADS of categories. But an important one is Category:Living people. Every article that's a biography of a living person needs to be in this category; it's really important. So what you could do is, hunt down articles on people who're still alive, and with a couple of clicks, add them to Category:Living people.

Let me know if you get stuck!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking help in writing more effectively

I write to you because of your recent edit to WP:Too long; didn't read-- here

I'm told that I need help in improving my writing. Articles present no problem, but I don't do well enough in talk page venues. I know that this is a non-standard request. I urge you to construe it as just one step in a process of mitigating fundamental flaws in in the way I address issues like logical fallacies or unfounded complaints. Until this week, I theorized that my problems arose when I attempted persuasive writing rather than expository prose, but it's not that simple. An illustrative example of my writing is to be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision.

ArbCom remedy

Voting is underway at WP:RfA/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision.

Proposed ArbCom findings of fact included:

• 3.2.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution. "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case."

ArbCom remedies included:

• 3.3.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution: "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion."

• 3.3.3 Editors advised: "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought."

When I initiated this ArbCom case, my intentions were quite limited, as explained best in my response to John Vandenberg here and as presented initially at WP:RfA/Tang Dynasty#Statement by Tenmei. However, the proposed decision's locus of dispute explains that "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved."

Backstory

Caspian blue and others have determined that I am Japanese, despite the fact that I have avoided self-labeling in terms of nationality, gender, marital status, etc. I gather that Caspian blue has endured a number of caustic disputes with anonymous contributors and sockpuppets; and many of these were seen to have originated in Japan. Caspian blue is Korean; and aggrieved complaints about perceived anti-Korean bias are commonplace, not only involving those like me with perceived or actual Japanese backgrounds.

As ipso facto "evidence" of my "long-term harassment", Caspian blue alleges here that in 2008 "Tenmei ... attacked my ethnicity and taunted my ancestors ...." Inexplicably, Caspian blue's 2008 complaint at WP:AN/IncidentArchive471#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks did not encompass this specific claim ... which I would have thought implies that it simply didn't happen.

This one example suggests complicated subtexts affecting a broad tranche of wiki-edits. A risk aversion strategy has thus far proven inadequate; and ArbCom is correct in anticipating future difficulties.

I'm guessing that this message to you is arguably the sort of gesture ArbCom wants from me. Perhaps you will construe it as an illustrative example of WP:TLDR.

If you are willing to discuss this off-wiki, I've activated the e-mail send/receive option in my user preferences.

Thank you for the time you invested in reading this. --Tenmei (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tenmei, and thank you for contacting me.

This is a very complex request and it will take me time to read through what's happened and try to answer it in a sufficiently thorough way.

Please be patient for a little while as I do that, but rest assured that I am looking into it and I will answer soon.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is not simple. Frankly, I haven't thought this through fully -- not in depth; but I do recognize that it will take many months for me to figure out how to adapt my writing in constructive ways.

It will also take time to learn from what I did manage to achieve in the past few months. Although my initial message focused on failings, I can identify a few small aspects of my writing which do suggest cause for optimism. A few of the sentences on the Proposed Decision talk page are a little bit better than I thought I could create.

Please accept my repeated thanks for the attention you're giving to this. --Tenmei (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tenmei, again.

On reviewing your contributions, I don't think it will take you long. You're clearly rather intelligent, and I think all that's needed are tweaks, different habits of speech, and different tools for responding rather than anything major.

I have now begun to read the background to this matter. I am dismayed because a lot of it seems to be about things far beyond my expertise. I'm sorry to say that I have little knowledge of China, Korea, and Japan, and I am very aware it would be easy for me to give offence by accident. If I do, I did not mean to.

I want to say a few things about ArbCom, and then a few things about English.

Arbcom

Wikipedia's "dispute resolution" system doesn't resolve content disputes. That's not what it's for. It deals only with matters of conduct. Wikipedia does not have a system for resolving content disputes. This is the central fact about ArbCom.

Where an editor is in a content dispute, they will sometimes try to find ways to turn it into a conduct dispute, because once bad conduct on the other side's part has been shown, they will be sanctioned — and the content dispute is won by default. There are Wikipedians who are very good at using this system to their benefit.

It follows that when you are in a content dispute, it is essential to avoid giving the other side a chance to make it into a conduct dispute. This calls for extremely careful use of language, and I am pleased to see you have acted quite correctly by asking someone about it.

I want to say that personally, I am unwilling to edit any page concerned with an ArbCom dispute. I do not participate there. I have never done so and I hope I never will.

Clear English

1) Use short words.

2) Use short sentences. Not necessarily all the time; it is okay to use long sentences as well, provided there are also short ones. Aim to make your average sentence no more than ten or twelve words long.

3) Use short paragraphs. Three or four sentences per paragraph should be the average.

4) Avoid qualifiers. This may seem strange, but English is often clearer when you do not use adjectives or adverbs. Instead, use more powerful verbs.

Example:

"It was raining heavily" --> "Rain slashed down". To most native English speakers, the second sentence seems stronger, clearer and more vivid.

5) Give examples, as I just did.

6) In a potential dispute situation, never use the second person if there is another option.

Examples:

"You're wrong" --> bad

"I disagree" --> good

7) If you must use the second person, use the first person as well.

"You shouldn't do that" --> bad

"I think it would be better if you did this" --> good

8) Flag everything even remotely contentious as your opinion, rather than as fact. Give reasons why it's your opinion.

"That's wrong" --> bad

"I think that's wrong because..." --> good

I hope this helps you, and I wish you the best of luck with your dispute.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

S Marshall -- Yes, thanks very much. Your format above seems immediately useful. I'm particularly fascinated by those examples showing good/bad contrast with arrows pointing ---> to "good" and to "bad." When I encounter misunderstandings it the future, I mioght be able to use your template to help can break down the sentences of needlessly confrontational prose; and maybe the unexpected graphics will lead towards more neutral alternatives? This is a small thing, but at least it's a potential tool I didn't have earlier today. I'm encouraged by this small step in the right direction.

I also like this maxim ---> "Flag everything even remotely contentious as your opinion, rather than as fact." I would have thought that I'd done something like this in several instances, but I now can see how I might have taken just one small step further ... and that might have made all the difference. I could have stated my intentions more explicitly. Alternately, I might be able to re-fashion your maxim into a question -- as a tool for inviting specific sentence-by-sentence feedback. In this dispute, the back-and-forth exchange of alternate conclusory sentences became I dynamic paradigm I couldn't quite escape.

As you may not know, the ArbCom workshop template suggests that the parties might ask questions of each other. Teeninvestor asked glibly, "How come you didn't comply with your own definition of WP:V?" At one point, the "Response to Teeninvestor" here could have been an alternative effort to build bridges. I posted something I'd written earlier, hoping that it might be more successful in the question/answer context? In this essay, I tried to encourage a dialogue by pointing to an early diff at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty in which I explained, "I ask no more from your edits than I would expect you to require from mine."

My extended remarks were addressed directly to one of the parties to the dispute; but I also imagined that these words might be seen as meaningful if the ArbCom decision-makers were to glance at an overview of my Wikipedia contributions. In the end, the writing may yet serve a purpose:

• A. This essay perhaps illustrates WP:TLDR, highlighting a problem which is typically "wrong" with my writing in our Wikipedia context. In other venues, there is nothing amiss. In fact, the approach and style of my writing has been well received. If I may impose further, I wonder if you might suggest how this text could have been edited to conforms with unwritten Wikipedia conventions. If not all, then perhaps some could have been more effectively used elsewhere?

• B: Optimistically, I had hoped that others who read this would recognize the demonstrated extent to which I'd investigated aspects of the disputed Chinese text. I hoped they would see that I was working to establish a foundation for moving forward. I prepared this text as if I were confronting a misunderstanding amongst peers. In retrospect, it seems clear that this short paragraph fell flat. I think it entirely likely that this paragraph produced only derision and denigration:

"I find it persuasive that Yaan focused attention, in part, on the intimate relationship between the credibility of authors and the verifiability of their work. In the context of our dispute, Teeninvestor's lack of information about the authors, Li Bo (historian) (李波) and Zheng Yin (historian) (郑颖), is inconclusive. In the absence of credible information about the authors or the publisher, Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House (内蒙古人民出版社), the fact that Teeninvestor's citations conform to a recognizable formatting style is not relevant. What is relevant is the search to verify or confirm the credibility of the published text which is said to inform specific sentences at Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Compliance with WP:CITE doesn't in itself convert 5000 years of Chinese history (中华五千年) ipso facto into anything other than a citation.

• C Now that I think of it, I recall having another purpose in mind when I wrote this -- I was hoping that writing would suggest that I might not bee as oddly stupid as others seemed more than willing to believe. It may have been nothing more than a rhetorical device, but I developed the impression all but the Mongolian participants in the talk page threads were somehow convinced that I was quite incompetent.

Bonsai -- Japanese Needle Juniper.

• D A final thought: You mention above that you aren't overly familiar with Asian history. It is remotely possible that an occasion may arise when you may find yourself wanting to know more about a something I know a little about? I'd look forward to repaying your generous gift of time?

This short essay represented a very odd turn; but there you have it. When I drafted it, ; I was quite at my wits end; and I was desperately trying to figure out some way to affect a positive result.

Bottom line. There is much about Wikipedia which is entirely beyond my grasp.

In thanks for your comments and help, please allow me to offer you this image -- a fine example of Japanese bonsai. A harbinger of the power of patient persistence and an augury of better days a head --Tenmei (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the bonsai tree!

There's a lot about Wikipedia that's beyond everyone's grasp. I'm certain that even Jimbo Wales would be baffled by many of the things that happen here.

I'm going to take one particular section of your answer and break it down.

"I find it persuasive that Yaan focused attention, in part, on the intimate relationship between the credibility of authors and the verifiability of their work. In the context of our dispute, Teeninvestor's lack of information about the authors, Li Bo (historian) (李波) and Zheng Yin (historian) (郑颖), is inconclusive. In the absence of credible information about the authors or the publisher, Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House (内蒙古人民出版社), the fact that Teeninvestor's citations conform to a recognizable formatting style is not relevant. What is relevant is the search to verify or confirm the credibility of the published text which is said to inform specific sentences at Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Compliance with WP:CITE doesn't in itself convert 5000 years of Chinese history (中华五千年) ipso facto into anything other than a citation.

I might have tried to convey the same ideas like this:

"Yaan speaks of the relationship between an author's credibility and his verifiability, and I find that persuasive. I think Teeninvestor knows little about Li Bo and Zheng Yin. I don't think we have credible information about the authors or publisher, so I think the formatting style of Teeninvestor's citations is irrelevant. What matters is whether the source is credible. It is my position that this source is not credible. 5000 years of Chinese history is clearly cited in the correct format, but that does not make it a reliable source.

I hope that is helpful.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is plainly helpful. The pattern mirrors the good/bad template you suggested initially, but this more nuanced process implicates a more sophisticated degree of re-focusing or fine-tuning.

Yes, I almost begin to recognize principles informed by what I construe as an hortatory maxim ---> "Flag everything even remotely contentious as your opinion, rather than as fact."

Yes ... but, I will need to think about this a bit more. These kind of changes in my writing will doubtless require a maturation period of indefinite length. We'll see. In any event, this is a good start in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Question/Your opinion

Hello, S Marshall. I was hoping you would be the one to close the Lnlwedding.jpg deletion review, because you seem to actually take the time to carefully weigh both sides of the arguments and seem quite fair. I sensed that you were hesitant to close this one, but I suppose I am okay enough about that. I would, however, like your opinion, as a second opinion, on the closing of this review. And, if you will, also on its validity within the Supercouple article. As I stated to the closer of this review, Aervanath, I am simply not seeing how the votes for delete or endorse in either of the discussions are more valid than my arguments for keep and overturn. The Supercouple article right now simply does not convey the right essence any longer without an image of the supercouple who started the term (particularly of the point which the term was started, their groundbreaking wedding). I am not seeing why this image had to be deleted, while less important images within the article get to remain. In addition, there is the fact that the main reason this image was nominated for deletion was not even about its use in the Supercouple article (something I addressed and took care of).

If I want to upload this image again at a later date due to feeling that it is even more valid within whichever article I put it in, which may include the Supercouple article, will I be allowed to do that without getting into Wikipedia trouble? Or should I list this image at deletion review again at that later time? Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22.  :)

I've occasionally closed uncontroversial DRVs but there is no way that I'd close a debate I'd participated in, sorry. Aervanath closes a lot of them. He is enormously experienced (far more so than I am), and I think it's unlikely that he's made a procedural mistake here.

On reviewing the DRV, I feel there was no consensus in the debate. At DRV, the default outcome for "No consensus" is "endorse the decision at XFD"; so I'm afraid that's pretty much the end of the line for challenging the deletion process.

I think it's a pity it worked out like that because I do have some sympathy for your argument.

I recommend not uploading this exact image again unless there is a consensus empowering you to do so, since that could be considered disruptive.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, S Marshall. I would not have thought that your simply asking a question in the discussion makes you unfit to close it, but I can grasp where you are coming from on that point. I also thank you for seeing some validity in my argument for keeping this image.

When you say that I should not upload this exact image again, do you mean without the same name? Or without the same name and without the exact image? You feel that it would be best to upload entirely different imagery from their wedding if I wanted to add an image of that event at a later date with significant critical commentary, right? Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the latter. I suggest that you do not upload that image again regardless of the name. If you possess another image that is distinctly different and comes from a different source, then it may be appropriate to use that.

If you are in doubt, the right man to ask about image permissions is Stifle, because he is extremely knowledgeable about them. I hope that you feel able to speak to Stifle, even though he deleted your image in the first place; but if you are reluctant because of that or for any other reason, mention it on my talk page and I'll speak to him. (Even though Stifle and I often disagree about content, we do get on well with each other and I'm happy to do it.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL. You did not have to add another "talk back" tag to my talk page after your first one there, but I like that you did because it shows that you care that I see your response. Some other editors (mainly newbies) probably do not even check a second time, which is also why I understand why you did it.

With Stifle, it is more about my feeling that he is too strict, LOL, with images and will mostly want a non-free image deleted even if it does significantly add to the article it is within. I feel that this was the case with him and the image of the famous Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer kiss. But I am not against asking him for image advice. I do not even really consider him as having deleted my image; rather, I look at the nominator having done that. But oh well.

Thank you for all your help on this matter. I will most definitely not upload this same exact image, and will not upload another Luke and Laura wedding image until it is further backed up by critical commentary of that event.

Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD

No, that wasn't my intention at all. And I did't state that on that AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mid-Pacific_English). I wanted to retract another one, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neoxica (2nd nomination)) - That's were it states that it was an "in error nom" Passportguy (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I can now see why you made the mistake, the Neoxica AfD is listed just below the other one - the speedy delete template belongs to that AfD. I'll blank the page and then tag it for deletion as to not cause confusion. Passportguy (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. In that case I'll close the correct one.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Upgrade WP:BEFORE to a guideline

I noticed that you opened this to consensus. Is this still open for discussion, because I just "voted"? If it's not then I can remove my thoughts - whatever is appropriate. Ti-30X (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an old proposal that failed to gain support.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Cdogsimmons and thank you for contacting me.

I'm afraid I feel that recreating this article at the moment is a very bad idea.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed

I have put the article as an FA please leave comments or suggestions if you can thanks! Bangali71 (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank you. I am starting up by cleaning up links. Let me know if you see any issues.Grandma Dottie (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Philomena, Duchess of Vendôme

Hi. I'm letting you know about this suggestion since you participated in the AfD. Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh me, oh my

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_6#New_Zealand_.E2.80.93_Pakistan_relations - I thought all on-wiki was fixable. If only Richard had just talked to me first, we wouldn't be in this mess. If this closes to endorse deletion, I can't very well undo it can I? Process over common sense dominates sometimes. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all down to who closes it, I should think, which is unfortunately all too often the case with DRV (and AfD). If we're lucky, Aervanath will close it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some would say the same of AfD. With the bilaterals, it's certainly a boit of a mixed and inconsistent bag, and I wish the noms had stopped. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm one of those who would say the same of AfD.  :) I agree with you about wishing those stupid noms had stopped... but not as much as I wish the stupid articles had never been written in the first place.

We need a system to solve this, because a disruptive editor could create chaos by sneaking in another huge article-series like the X-Y relations one. I'm minded to suggest a mass-removal from the mainspace while good faith editors work on the material.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps an extension of the holding pen idea I've been concocting up at WT:CSD - a sort of non-article space area for contentious but not entirely deletable articles to be examined, rescued, merged, deemed hopeless and then appropriate action (moved to articlespace or deleted) taken. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to making proposals

What do you think about merging Gapers block and rubbernecking and is there a need for an apostrophe? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't merge them, and I'd suggest using an apostrophe as Wiktionary does.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

When you agree with my position I find your suggestions to be extraordinarily wise and well considered. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in cognitive science (2nd nomination)

Please see my comments. Can you save this one? Bearian (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't need to rescue the current version, Bearian; I don't see it's worth saving. Just a question of re-creating a different article with the same title based on proper sources, which is something I'm interested in doing, but not necessarily now.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Afd Greenfinger

Seeing as you have taken part in the conversation before I thought you should be notified of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination). The previous decision seems to have been against consensus, which was more for redirect. I personally think the article should be deleted. This is not canvasing as I am informing all people involed in the previous discussions and nobody outside of the discussions. Polargeo (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

for your perusal:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Transatlantic Studies. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

New essay that might interest you

Following on from your excellent explanation at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_17#Hispanic_Commonweal, and another contributor's suggestion that there was an essay to be written about promotion of non-profit organisations on WP, you might be interested in editing WP:NOBLECAUSE. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 17:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, I'll take a look.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I can never remember whether to use "s" or "z", or which one is "British English", and whether "American English" spelling is the same as "Oxford English", and if so which should I use.... Hey-ho. As long as it's all consistent, anyway. Strange how this has all come out of my decision to press the "delete" button on a new article! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)