User talk:KingTor

RE: New Mexico
Hola!

Could you add sources for you additions to the article New Mexico. Otherwise they'll have to come out.


 * The beautiful and varied scenery has always attracted Hollywood filmmakers, which have in turn attracted skilled and professional crew personnel.

In addition, saying "has always" is not very encyclopedic. They've been coming since the dawn of man? Try to say "since the 1940s" or when ever it was.


 * Recent financial incentives and infrastructure investment have created more opportunities for crews.

What incentives and investments? What opportunities?


 * In the late summer of 2007 production reached an all time high.

Prove it, what are the numbers? As compared to what?


 * Film and television post-production is also growing dramatically as a source of full time, high wage jobs.

What post-production? How high are those wages?

Okay, carry on,

WikiDon 18:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Can you put me in the movies?

Thank you for your notes, and I'll see what I can do about putting you in a movie. Thanks to you, I've taken another draft which can be seen in New Mexico, incorporating additional research, citations and a more encyclopedic tone. In the future, I'll do more drafting on my own before I publish things.

KingTor 02:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

New Article?
Have you thought about a contributing new article? Maybe something like: New Mexico film history or Film production in New Mexico????? WikiDon 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I love this idea. I am currently in the thinking stages--clearly it'll take more research than I've had time for today, but I'm looking forward to the research.

KingTor 02:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How to Cite Sources in an article
KingTor,

Please read:

Citing sources and also Citing sources/example style

You need to work on how you add information to Wikipedia.

I think you are doing great, but you have to figure out what an encyclopedia is, and what it is not.


 * 1) Don't "own" these articles. Contribute and don't get attached to them. You'll be happier.
 * 2) If you want to contribute more editorial prose style, this is NOT the place.
 * 3) In an encyclopedia we do not say things like:


 * The Nile is a lovely river in Africa.

This is editorial prose.

We say:


 * The Nile is a river in Africa.

While "lovely" maybe 100% accurate, is it really encyclopedic? You may write information that is 100% accurate, and is good material, but does not belong here, in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias, are BLACK and WHITE (for the most part). It is not Live Planet, or something close to that.

A lot of people mis-understand what is needed here, including myself. I have to continuely check myself from editorializing and interjecting my own thoughts into my contributions, and still things seem to slip through. But, I do better if I give up "ownership" of the article, I don't take it to heart, don't take it personally. If I can stay back and remain objective, I seem to do a lot better at keeping "waffle words" out.

SEE: Guide to writing better articles (This is a good one!)

I know that I am a better encyclopedia editor now, than I was when I first started here, in May of 2004. But I know that I can still improve even more than what I have done so far. The amount of information that I DON'T know keeps growing faster than the list of what I DO know.

Thanks, keep up the good work, improve, but keep it up.

WikiDon 17:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, WikiDon. I cleaned up the sources (and found some better ones) in New Mexico and tried to take out the editorial prose. That is going to be a struggle for me as I tend to write with a very informal voice. I think I'll keep reading, editing and practicing before I take on a whole new article because it's going to be harder to give up ownership on a whole new article than on minor changes.

KingTor 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hear Kitty Studios
An editor has nominated Hear Kitty Studios, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Hear Kitty Studios and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.