User talk:Ottex

This is a heck of a way to say, hello... I wish it were on better terms. (Ans: Do Not worry it is part of the dialogue process, in a fast changing art research environment.Ottex)

My concern about article Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?
Hello, Ottex, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or argumentative, but I'm concerned about article Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?, which you have edited. Could we discuss that concern here? edit warring

I'd appreciate learning your own views, understanding your reasons for your particular edits, and discussing what alternatives might avoid raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:
 * If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
 * If you prefer, we can discuss the matter at Talk:Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?, where other editors could contribute their viewpoints.
 * If we can't agree in either setting, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
 * If you prefer not to deal with me at all, you can ask others for guidance: there are experienced Wikipedians who offer mentorship, "adoption", or advocacy; and many admins will also make the time to answer earnest questions on their talk pages (though some are either very busy or away on "Wikibreak").
 * Any time you feel overwhelmed by the complexity of it all, you can simply post   here on your talk page, with a description of your questions or problems, and someone will show up to help you find answers or solutions.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your editing is so bad that you should just stop or be stopped. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus -- either here, or at Talk:Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?, or at WP:RFC. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you again! -- --sparkit TALK 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

--sparkit TALK 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sparkit I know you are trying to be helpful, and that is damn reassuring. Most cyber types just crash the wiki sites for their jollies like they have done with the other Pop art site. You have also indicated that you appreciate the entertainment value in the original didactic Just What text. It should be explained as follows. The problem posed in developing the text ( before the surgical strike and edits) was that Hamilton's claim had to be clearly and definatively refuted. (Senior Curators at the TATE had already been alerted to the iconic content of McHale's design in several letters back in 2006, but not in all the detail as provided publicly on the wiki site.) Secondly there was a need to provide some detailed supporting text to explain to other academic experts and public alike how the collage is iconically inter-related; and not some tabular 2-D cut out like Hamilton for years has alleged. The wiki text works like a conceptual labyrinth that explains McHale's mental landscape as he originally designed the Pop Art work. The wonderful modern facility of wiki and its search engine permits for the first time a way of dynamically capturing some of the iconic inter-relations and conceptual nuances in McHale's collage design. Thereby, wiki enbles one to display them in an easy accessible format to viewers so they can mentally traverse the work in a way that would not have seemed possible 50 years ago... So then along comes an edit team with good intentions and hacks the conceptual labyrinth of McHale's design to bits; and then the edit team truncates the crucial arguments and textural proof showing Hamilton's fraud. Hamilton now gets away Scot free again, and on top of it the public is denied a glimpse at the iconic inter-relations and rich skien of ideas embodied in McHale's original design of the Just What collage. What the edit team should have tried first to do was accomodate the original text by placing an editorial fronticepiece which provides a neutral contextural review and history of the collage. Now the text is in shambles and it may be left as such for posterity, and open to further gratuitous attacks. Ottex5.3.07

Talk:Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?
Some of your comments on this page are a breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please tone down your conversation or continuation will lead to being blocked from editing. Thank you. Tyrenius 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the rules warning Rex. Both parties were a bit heated in their exchange, but that ads to the flavour of the ongoing debate about what constitutes a fake piece of Pop art and what constitutes an original design. In the meantime it helped establish some operational paramters and make explicit the assumed 'expertise' of the particpants involved in the editing process. The wiki editorial hints you have supplied below are valuable, particularly if it is decided to resume in-putting again to wiki. So, thanks for both those suggestions. Ottex 5.3.07

Guide to referencing
{| class="navbox collapsible " style="text-align: center; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em; font-size: 100%; " ! style="background-color: #f90;" | Using references (citations)
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" style="text-align: left;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" style="text-align: left;" |

I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started.

Good references
A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use Reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is Original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research.

Simple referencing
The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section. This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:


 * ==Notes and references==

The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):



Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference.

Test it out
Copy the following text, open the edit box for this page, paste it at the bottom (inserting your own text) and save the page:


 * ==Reference test==


 * This is the text which you are going to reference.


 * ==Notes and references==



(End of text to copy and paste.)

Information to include
You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For a book it might look like this:



An online newspaper source would be:



Note the square brackets around the URL. The format is [URL Title] with a space between the URL and the Title. If you do this the URL is hidden and the Title shows as the link. Use double apostrophes for the article title, and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics).

The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Wikilinks (double square brackets which create an internal link to a wikipedia article) function inside the ref tags. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings.

Citation templates
You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference

Same ref used twice or more
The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the

The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:



You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them.

Example
You can see refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.

Next step
When you become familiar with the process, the next step is to have one section, "Footnotes", with links embedded in the text, and another, "References", which lists all of your references alphabetically with full details, e.g. for a book:


 * Lincoln, Abraham; Grant, U. S.; & Davis, Jefferson (1861). Resolving Family Differences Peacefully (3rd ed.). Gettysburg: Printing Press. ISBN 0-12-345678-9.

If you're ready to go into it further, these pages have detailed information:
 * Citing sources
 * Citing sources/example style
 * Citation templates
 * Footnotes

I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know.

Tyrenius 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * }

Daunting stuff to the uninitiated. Thanks Ottex5.3.07

Edit summaries
Hi, Ottex. Including edit summaries is helpful to other editors, particularly if you are doing a series of edits on the same article. Thanks, --Ethicoaestheticist 22:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethic's:Thank you for your support, and politely reminding me and keeping me on the straight and narrow path concerning wiki protocol.I beg your indulgence. It is a pains-taking process building the documentation on John McHale's collage design and iconic material. I will try to follow up with further explanations after I have detailed more of the footnotes and references. There is a great deal of material known by the McHale family which has never been published, but according to wiki rules everything has to be referenced to existing public published sources. This puts a limit on the quality and content of information that can be made available for disclosure to academic scholars and the general public. I will try to explain some of the Scots humour and conceptual interrelations embodied in McHale's "Just What...?" collage design, and how his iconic material relates to his other works, and the POP art ready-mades McHale positioned at the This Is Tomorrow Exhibit. Ottex Dec 4/007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.82.210 (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As ever, thanks for all your hard work. But, I don't think you've used a single edit-summary since my last message. I'm not sure you know what I'm referring to so please have a look at Help:Edit summary. You fill in a short account of your edit in the the small box under the main edit box (if that makes sense!). For example, to avoid your recent edits being reverted you could have put in the edit summary box something like "removing links which point to the wrong articles." Without the edit summary sometimes people think something is vandalism when it's not.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it's very helpful if you indent your paragraphs. It's easy; type a colon before the paragraph. Each additional colon will indent another bit, so if you're replying to someone in an indented paragraph, put two colons for your reply, or three, four, etc. 76.22.20.146 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the edit protocol advice. You may be interested to know I thoroughly checked the content of the Frank Cordell site personally with Magda Cordell before she died, also Anja Cordell, and Franks's nieces, Mary and Jane Phillips, plus Evan and Julian McHale who lived with Frank for years. So that material is acurate even though it is not in printed published cited form as of yet. On the Just What collage site it has been edited yet again by some fellow who admits he has no expertise in the subject matter--and it shows. I am probably going to leave the Just What site alone for a while, it gets tedious providing the reference material and having it errased by amateurs. Even though as it now stands it is very difficult for someone doing any research on the collage to understand the full intricacies of McHale's total design and all the iconic material that went into the collage. For years Hamilton had a free ride on the collage attribution, based on an alleged list he used for directing the production process. His list does not include the Tootsie Pop, it does not include the Armstrong floor ad etc, and his alleged list does not specify scale, symmetry and orientaion which is vital and necessary when directing a production team and putting a complex collage layup together. At least the Just What site points out the controversy over Hamilton's claims, and affirms McHale's creative role in the collage. Thanks for your team work over the years.Ottex (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex/05.08
 * Please note that wikipedia requires material to be based on its definition of reliable sources and personal knowledge is not allowed per WP:NOR, however insightful it might be.  Ty  15:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tye I am quite aware of that wiki rule but in the case of Frank Cordell there is almost zero published material on his life because he was very private about his life. Wiki is lucky to get it. I flagged this issue almost three years ago when I first put it up. If you wish to blow down the Cordell site because it is based on family archives then so be it. Or you can leave it and wait for the shoddy British art historians to start writing published material on Frank's contributions which so far they have totally neglected to do. The references provided on the Just What site were based on published citations, and the recent editor with no knowledge in the subject matter chose to omit them completely. Thanks any way.Ottex (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex 15/08
 * The "references" you provided which I removed are not references. They do not refer to published works. If they don't YOU CAN'T USE THEM. PERIOD. Get your stuff published somewhere and then maybe it will merit inclusion. Wikipedia is not an arts journal. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 04:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a matter of your opinion, most of the references can be verified. For example the vendor of the tape recorder which has never been identified by Hamilton but is identified with a specific references provided in the footnotes. Many of the iconic conceptual interconnections provided are verifyable by the hyperlinks. Your main problem is your total lack of expertise in the subject matter which you have personaly admited as an editor on the discussion page, so you do not understand what in the hell you are editing. So leave it alone. Hamilton has claimed all along the work is based on a list and is 'tabular', and thus not conceptually interconnected; whereas, McHale who designed the collage has evidently produced a collage design where the various iconic images are conceptually designed as interconnected. For example the Tootsie POP image and the link to Al Jolson singing Tootsie, and the fact that it was a deliberate design reference because McHale coined the term Pop art. Similarly the footnotes provide the three separate iconic interelated references to the Ladies' Home Journal, and you failed in your hack edit to credit the information source to the original footnotes. Agreed Wiki is not an arts journal; nor is it intended as a play pen for hack editors with zero expertise in the subject matter.04:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex/08
 * Please continue this on the article talk page to centralise discussion. Also don't insult other editors and tell them not to edit an article. See WP:OWN.  Ty  23:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

a fast changing art research environment
"in a fast changing art research environment" is exactly what Wikipedia is not.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up
You're being discussed at WP:ANI.  Anturiaethwr  Talk 03:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

John McHale
Please don't keep on adding his name as a credit for the collage as you did to Pop art. This is becoming a problem. Wikipedia has to go by generally accepted facts of majority opinion, and this does not credit McHale. Until such time as it does, wikipedia will not either. Your contributions indicate a main purpose of being here to promote McHale. I suggest you widen your scope.  Ty  13:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have provided the complete reference on John McHale's recognise collaboration on the "Just what..?" Pop art collage and cited the text source with photo in "Art a Definitive Guide" ISBN 978-1-5536-091-3 page 534 so please unblock the Pop Art site so we can get on with presenting the facts.Ottex (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Ottex/Oct. 08

I've reverted your edit. See Talk:Pop_art. It needs to be resolved on the talk page of the article Just What Is It That Makes Today’s Homes So Different, So Appealing? in the first instance.  Ty  23:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Please note that continued reversions, certainly more than 3 times, and edit warring can lead to being blocked. You may have forgotten to sign in with your user name for an edit. Please make sure you do to avoid any appearance of violating WP:SOCK. Thanks.  Ty  23:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sign
As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Talk page guidelines. Thank you.  Ty  02:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

Thanx Ty for reminding me of the code protocolOttex (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)