User talk:Axios023
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Awesome job w/ Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition!
Wow, I must have been asleep at the wheel while you wrote almost the entire article. Awesome job and thanks so much for your help!--Kchase T 01:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Much obliged. If there's anything else to which I can lend my expertise, please let me know. ---Axios023 05:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categorization
Just wanted to drop you a quick note reminding you to categorize your articles on Supreme Court cases. All you need to do is put [[Category: {name of category}]] at the bottom of the page once you've finished writing. This helps to group similar articles together and aids people in browsing.
Good work with all those SCOTUS cases, and happy editing! --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Punctuation then Quotations
This is a common perscribed rule in American English. The original reason for it was during mechanical typesetting, where placing them in the other order was more likely to cause damage to the type casts. As such, the purpose for this rule has disappeared in our modern age, but many grammarians are just stuck on the rule, just because they're so used to it.
However, this rule was never really big in British English, and modern typists are begining to pick up the rule that whichever symbol binds tighter to the quote should go first. As such a list of terms such as: "a", "b", "c" should not have the commas inside of the quotes, as the comma is not part of the term being introduced. Note, sometimes punctuation is part of the term being introduced, such as "Yahoo!", and "Bleem!". In this case, the punctuation should be within the quotes, and not outside of, as it is part of the term, and not a function of the sentence itself. --Puellanivis 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- As long as we agree that the order in which the punctuation goes is arbitrary, I'm happy to follow the Wikipedia style manual's rule on this.---Axios023 07:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Featured article review of Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
