User talk:Axios023

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)

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 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)

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)

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 &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bar exam
Thanks for wishing me luck...I'm taking the New Jersey bar exam. --Eastlaw 04:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Kyllo v. United States
Could you please explain where the "For Kyllo, the result was tremendous" part and the second paragraph here come from? It appears that this precise wording already was published about a year earlier on an external blog. See also Copyright problems/2007 July 4/Articles. Lupo 15:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  15:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this issue, Axios23. It appears to be resolved. The question about this article had been raised at the Help Desk along with two other articles. There appeared to be no copyvio issue at all with one of the articles, but you might be interested to see how the research into the third article went (look at the summary).

WP meetup
-- phoebe/ (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

HI!!
Hi Axios023, my name is Oscar and I´m from Mexico. I´m doing an english high school project that consists on doing an essay of the main characteristics of a foreign university. First of all,I would like to know if you are able to help me with the information I could need in this project. By the way, I will really appreciate your help, read you later...ciao. Yacopop 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)YacopopYacopop 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Questioning minor 1st paragraph edits?
Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
 * A1. Benjamin Cardozo
 * A2. Learned Hand
 * B1. John Marshall Harlan
 * B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding your comment on Supreme Court Justices, you are correct; I remember reading that "Your Honor" was not proper protocol, but either I am mistaken in my memory or they've given up. Their own guide to counsels arguing mentions "Your Honor" as an appropriate form of address. Perhaps I am confusing "Your Honor" with "Judge", which they explicitly say should not be used... Thanks for the correction. Magidin (talk). 10:30, 5 January 2008 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.66.132 (talk)

Re: Bar exam
Hi, thanks for the message. Good luck on the California bar. By the way, how is the legal job market in your part of the country? It's pretty bad here--I have taken a temporary job as a contract attorney to pay the bills. It's rather boring work, but it isn't quite as bad as many people make it out to be. Still though, I hope to find permanent work soon. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lockyer v. Andrade
Just looked up this article today out of interest, and noticed you played the major role in writing it. Excellent work! I appreciate contributions like yours. It was easy to understand, clear, and to the point – all helpful for those who have only a passing understand of the judiciary. Thanks! 161.13.111.47 (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I appreciate your feedback. ---Axios023 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases submitted to peer review
Hi. I've submitted List of United States Supreme Court cases (formerly Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases) for peer review here and though you might like to comment. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair Sentencing Act
Hello, Axios023. I am currently participating in the United States Public Policy WikiProject. I see you have contributed mainly to articles on United States Supreme Court cases, and one article you worked on (Kimbrough v. United States) covers a similar subject area as the article I am working on (Fair Sentencing Act) for this Wikiproject. Both of these articles discuss sentencing issues surrounding crack cocaine such as the ratio disparities between crack and powder cocaine. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a look at the Fair Sentencing Act article and leave any advice and/or observations on its discussion page. I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, so any suggestions would be helpful as I continue to work on expanding this article. Thanks! Gsrogers (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)