Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Jackel1138, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —TKD[talk][c] 22:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Hi there; I saw your edits to the machinima article; thanks for finding more sources! I think at least some of the points made in the "semiotic mode" section that you added were hinted at or almost touched on at some other points in the article (the parody vs. satire issue was mentioned in one the sections dealing with legal issues, if I recall), but there are also a bunch of new points, so I'm now wondering about how best to organize the information so that the flow of the overall article seems most natural. Most of the existing overall article structure dates from 2009, so it may be worth revisiting a bit.
In any event, it's always easier to visualize an article that already has well-cited material, so, again, many thanks for adding it. —TKD[talk][c] 22:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm thinking about this, and I think the discussion of the degree of intertextuality in machinima might fit under "Common genres" (which should probably be retitled somehow, but I'm not sure to what), and the legal implications of it might go under "Legal issues". I'm also thinking that the "genres" section should go immediately after "Production". The genres section does discuss other examples of repurposing game engines and such, so what you added might be a logical continuation or elaboration of it, at least in part. —TKD[talk][c] 22:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I didn't realize that you were working on this for a class assignment. You've certainly found an interesting topic. Certainly take the time to flesh out what you want to write. As you refine that section, you may also want to pay attention to Wikipedia's house style—names of works in italics (Red vs. Blue instead of Red vs. Blue), avoidance of contractions except in direct quotations, etc. Good luck! —TKD[talk][c] 23:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
The thing to keep in mind about Wikipedia is that there really, genuinely is a culture of "you are able to edit this", and to be bold in doing so. While that's intended to encourage collaborative editing, it also means that people aren't afraid to edit things if they believe they can improve them. (The other part that unfortunately can be forgotten in the midst of editing is that Wikipedia depends on discussion to come a consensus about articles.)
As for the term "moderators", just to clear up a misconception: There are editors (everyone is one) and administrators (who are also editors). There is no group holding special control over Wikipedia content. Yes, administrators can delete pages and block editors (among other things), but there are rather detailed policies governing the use of those functions, and their use is forbidden if the administrator is already involved in a capacity as a normal editor. That's to say, the vast majority of interactions will be with other Wikipedians as normal editors. —TKD[talk][c] 05:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Jackel1138! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)
