User talk:Grammar-Nazi

 Welcome to The Vault! Hello, Grammar-Nazi, and welcome to The Vault, the Fallout wiki! Thank you for your contributions, and we hope you'll stay with us and make many more.

Some links you may find useful:
 * Recent changes lets you see what other people are editing currently and where you can help. You can also check our community portal for things to do.
 * If you haven't already, create a user page about yourself. If you do, we'll be able to know you better as a member of our community.
 * If you are new to wikis, the help pages can help you learn how to edit and how use the wiki tools. For test edits, feel free to create a personal sandbox.
 * The Vault's policies and guidelines describe how we do things around here and can help you make even better contributions.

If you have questions, you can ask in our forums, join the live chat in our IRC channel or post a message on my talk page. We hope you enjoy editing here and look forward to working with you!

-- AreYouGoingToEatThatNuke? (Talk) 07:48, 2010 August 6

Grammar Nazi
From your user page: "Exactly what the name implies: poor grammar is a pet peeve of mine and a wiki is a place to (albeit passive aggressively) correct it. Also, a poorly worded sentence can effect clarity, so I like to fix that."
 * The colon should be a period, and a new sentence should begin with a capitalized Poor.
 * A comma is needed between mine and and to separate the two complete clauses.
 * A grammar nazi would not care to use a split infinitive, especially one split by a paranthetical insertion. Avoiding split infinitives has never been an ironclad rule of grammar, but choosing to disregard the "rule" puts you more in the democratic shades of the grammar-patrol spectrum.
 * According to the structure of the first sentence, it refers to pet peeve and not to poor grammar. The sentence should be reworded for tighter pronoun-antecedent agreement.
 * Effect should be affect.
 * The second sentence also suffers from poor pronoun-antecedent agreement. That structurally refers to the entire first clause, causing the sentence you wrote to mean that you like to fix the fact that poorly worded sentences can affect clarity. I believe you mean to say that you like to fix poorly worded sentences themselves.

Welcome to The Vault! Enjoy your stay, and I hope you make many valuable contributions (even if I did just out-Nazi you). ;)--Gothemasticator 00:55, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal:
 * There's nothing wrong with a colon in this situation.
 * A comma is optional in this situation.
 * Someone can be a grammar nazi about the invalidity of that rule, and thus wantonly violate it without losing the grammar nazi title.
 * Agreed: in this context, they are actually antonyms.
 * Agreed on this point too.

All in good fun :D Kris (talk) 01:32, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your rebuttal and raise you! :)
 * The colon in this case would be appropriate only if the entirety of what follows the colon is an explanation of or restatement of what comes before the colon. The existing sentence would have to be rewritten drastically to make the colon appropriate. For instance, Exactly what the name implies: I put grammar offendors in death camps. You see my point? Being a "grammar nazi" is not exactly what the name implies, nor does the explanation of the implication hold up sensibly or grammatically.
 * The comma is not optional between two complete clauses joined by a conjunction.
 * You can't actually be a grammar "nazi" about rules being optional. The whole point is to be a stickler who actively changes others' text to conform to a stricter set of rules than the general public employs or accepts.


 * --Gothemasticator 02:23, August 7, 2010 (UTC)