User talk:Solarra: Difference between revisions

Suggest Bot Recommended Articles

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with… 8 Southern Cross Campus (talk) Add sources 128 Raj Comics (talk) Add sources 5,388 Hawaii (talk) Add sources 10 Diocesan School for Girls, Auckland (talk) Add sources 5 Immanuel Christian School, New Zealand (talk) Add sources 14 Botany Downs Secondary College (talk) Add sources 13 Wesley College, Auckland (talk) Cleanup 16 Auckland International College (talk) Cleanup 71 University of Hawaii at Hilo (talk) Cleanup 9 Henderson High School (Auckland) (talk) Expand 22 Phage (Star Trek: Voyager) (talk) Expand 21 Index of Hawaii-related articles (talk) Expand 275 History of Hawaii (talk) Unencyclopaedic 260 Ferengi (talk) Unencyclopaedic 53 Sugar plantations in Hawaii (talk) Unencyclopaedic 18 Compositions by Liliuokalani (talk) Merge 266 Tim Russ (talk) Merge 2,353 SAP SE (talk) Merge 71 Gorn (talk) Wikify 627 Walter Koenig (talk) Wikify 591 Where no man has gone before (talk) Wikify 5 Jugal Devi Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Kanpur (talk) Orphan 3 Hawaii County Band (talk) Orphan 6 Index of structural engineering articles (talk) Orphan 10 Oratia United (talk) Stub 13 Sanjay Gupta (comics) (talk) Stub 8 Fighter Toads (talk) Stub 7 Birkdale, New Zealand (talk) Stub 7 Auckland Seventh-day Adventist High School (talk) Stub 3 McAuley High School, Auckland (talk) Stub SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is just to inform you that Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. has been nominated by another editor for deletion. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I had to argue deletion there, but for that specific article I couldn't find a policy or guideline to keep it, as hard as I tried :( ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 04:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solarra. I've noticed that you've started writing articles on Supreme Court cases, which I think is a fascinating topic: I've written one myself, Gabelli v. SEC. One thing though: in the context of SCOTUS cases, per curiam refers only to unsigned opinions, and the opinion of the Court will explicitly designate it thus (example:[1]). If a specific justice delivers the opinion, it's not per curiam. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I know, honestly it's a template learning issue. I'll go back and fix it :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 19:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Solarra, some constructive advice. First, you're not being careful when you create these articles. There are obvious errors (like redlinks) that you should catch before going on to the next one. Second, I don't know if other articles do this, but the abbreviations for district and circuit courts you're using in the infobox are ugly. Why would anyway use "Ckt" for circuit? Maybe Cir., but it's just as easy, for example to say "Ninth Circuit" or whatever circuit. Finally, although I haven't seen this in your stubs, I have seen it in some of your comments. The word "judgment" is spelled without an "e" in America. The other spelling is British. As an American lawyer, I'm surprised you'd want to spell it the British way unless you're just trying to be culturally diverse. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a definite system for court abbreviations—I expect you've learned the Bluebook citation format, Solarra. I tried looking at it once, and I could make neither head nor tail of it, but it's probably the best style out there. Yeah, the weird thing about the SCOTUS infobox is no matter what value you designate for the parameter |per curiam=, "yes" or "no", it still makes per curiam show up. I already fixed that issue in the articles I found. Check out United States v. Lara, it's a featured SCOTUS case page. GregJackP wrote that one; it's too bad he retired in February. Altamel (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solarra should be familiar with Bluebook; most American lawyers are. I don't create case articles myself, so I haven't looked at any guidance that might be out there. In other words, just like in so many things, Wikipedia doesn't always follow other styles - it often has its own. The case you mention, for example, doesn't follow Bluebook style to the letter, although it hews fairly closely to it. One of the cited cases in the primary history is very odd as it puts in both 8th Cir. and the district court in the same parenthetical. I assume that's a mistake but I'm not going to alter it. For a featured article it has a lot of language quirks and errors - probably written by a lawyer or lawyers. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]