User:Queen of Awesome
| This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Queen_of_Awesome. |
 | This user is in university. This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time. |
 |
Yellow Alert. Wikipedia Security to go to stations. [view • purge] 4.90 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 17:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC) change |
3 |
|
.jpg){kind=small}
Her Majesty The Queen Of Awesome (born January 15, 1996) also referred to as Grace (Birth name), Llama Queen (on Her Majesty's old website, Urge To Write, which no longer exists) and Iwanttochangemyname (on Her Awesomeness' profile on DeviantArt), is the most awesome person in the world. She has managed to achieve this title simply by existing, a feat which has been achieved by no other person in history. Many sources[1] have challenged this title, claiming that it in fact belongs to Chuck Norris. These claims have, however, been disproved[2] .
About Me
[edit]My name is Grace, but my friends call me Spellcheck due to my tendency to read dictionaries when I'm bored and randomly correct people's spelling. I'm not as awesome as my username or this page says, nor am I pigheaded enough to believe I am. I have adopted a typo called Alot. He's wonderful, really, and brightens up my day every time I see him. :D
Vandalism Warnings
[edit]I tend to mass-vandal-check (if that's what it's called) articles, which means I will be reading four or five articles at once looking for vandalism, and if I see anything that looks like it, I will revert it and post a standard warning on your talk page. If you feel that I have incorrectly reverted something that you have posted, please notify me here. NOTE: I used to use this template for vandalism notices, but I now use the standard Wikipedia template. Thank you.
Comment Editing
[edit]A warning, this is a bit of a long read, hence the collapsible box.
All comments I make are works in progress and are subject to change without warning. I refactor my comments a lot, sometimes I use strikethrough, but sometimes I don't consider this reasonable. I will sometimes modify my comments even after people have replied to them. If I make a modification (as opposed to a complete deletion) of a comment in a manner which I feel might be misleading I will add text to the effect of "[comment edited after reply]". So if you want to reply to a comment of mine, keep this in mind. In some cases you might want to form a response which stands alone and post it separately, rather than forming a thread.
A wiki provides the ability to modify your comments after you've written them, and the ability to combine comments from multiple people into one. In many cases, especially where there is a well established concept, it seems most efficient not to form a thread at all. The concept is similar to that of [1], although it's more like MultiWiki, and uses the same page, rather than different ones. It is also used extensively on Everything2, where thread mode is not really available. One example where I think this worked well was on Talk:Drug addiction.
A wiki also provides the ability to sign your username and a timestamp. If I refactor my comments, I may update the timestamp by either deleting the old signature entirely and replacing it, adding the text "Edited:" and ~~~~, or by striking out the old timestamp and inserting ~~~~~(a timestamp). In some cases, I may delete the old timestamp entirely and not replace it, or leave the old one be.
The above refers to me refactoring my own comments. Generally I'd prefer that people don't refactor my comments for me. If my comment is in response to you, and you delete that comment, I'm generally OK with you deleting my response. But if you do so, please leave a message either here or on my user talk page, and don't delete the same comment more than once. If I re-add it, I want to keep it. Alternatively, feel free to quote my comment.
If you do refactor a comment of mine (for example to fix my grammar or spelling), please note that here or on my user talk page. And if I revert your change, please don't revert it back.
If you decide to copy a comment of mine, for instance to refer to it in a response, please put it in quotes or italics and attribute it to me. But don't add my signature, rather use a format such as "User:Whoever said: whatever". My signature is meant for things which I write in the format I present them, perhaps with exceptions for minor editorial corrections.
None of this is policy, nor is it intended to be such. I think most of my requests above are actually expansive of normal procedures (not to mess with other people's comments at all), so I don't see it as becoming a problem.
There's nothing wrong with thread mode, per se, and sometimes thread mode makes the most sense. I'm sure I could come up with some examples if I thought really hard. But I've also seen situations where thread mode has failed miserably. Sometimes it's intentional, because one side insists on making circular arguments. Other times it's more likely not intentional, but the discussion still strays way off the original point. The biggest problem with thread mode is that it doesn't require people to make complete arguments. But really, the question isn't one of threaded vs. unthreaded. It's more a question of whether or not people are allowed, even expected, to modify their original statements.
- This approach makes it difficult to reply.
- Actually this method doesn't change your ability to reply at all.
- But you might make me look stupid.
- This is an argument that is made when a reply makes an objection and I then respond to that objection. If you'd like, I can remove your objection when I reply to it. But I assume that people don't like me changing their comments. So feel free to remove your objection yourself, after it is no longer valid. Why waste readers' time looking at something phrased poorly, followed by a request for clarification, followed by the clarification? Why not just have the reader read the clarified statement from the beginning?
- How do you reply to a comment that might change any time, and that certainly will change if you make any effective criticism of it?
- Depends if your purpose is to win an argument or to convince others of your point. If your only purpose is to win an argument, I'd suggest a debate team, not Wikipedia. If your purpose is to actually convince others of your point of view, then having someone change his comment in response to your criticism seems evidence that you have succeeded. Just respond the same way you would otherwise.
This text was adapted from a warning by Anthony DiPierro and is used with his permission.
References
[edit]- ^ "An Overview Of Mr. Chuck Norris".
- ^ Norris, Chuck. "Chuck Norris".
Links
[edit]About This Page
[edit]You may edit this page, if you feel the overwhelming need, just don't vandalise it or remove anything important. Thank you.
The preceding post was a special message from Her Majesty, the Queen of Awesome, 10:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)