User talk:Reginald gray/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reginald Gray Page[edit]

I am very sorry that I do not know how to add "inline" connections to my page. All I can say that all the bio information on my page comes from my own life and I do not see any remarks that might come under the term "libel" I have worked hard to find the ISBN numbers and have added them to my "Sources". I would very much appreciate administration help as I am now near my 80th year and am far from being a computor expert. It is embarrassing for me to see the banner on top of my article as all the info I have given is 100% correct and without any scandal or similar. [[User talk:Reginald Gray|talkReginald gray (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A simple demo of inline references is here. Edit the page to see the wikitext (and close the browser window to cancel the edit). Also, at Talk:Reginald Gray (artist), see the "Here are two inline citations being added" comment which includes a link to show the edit in question.
It takes quite a while for articles to be developed, so please do not be overly concerned with the tags (the banners at the top of Reginald Gray (artist)). The "inline citations" banner is appropriate until most facts mentioned in the article are verified with a reference. For example, "After studying at The National College of Art in 1953..." is a fact that does not have a reference. More problematic are assertions like "This may be the reason for Gray's use of mostly Italian earth colours on his palette" because that is clearly an opinion which would need to be attributed to a person who has stated that opinion in a reliable source. I know it is somewhat surreal for you to have to justify such text, but if you reflect on the fact that this is an encyclopedia where anyone can edit, and anyone can claim to be an authority on any subject, it is very appropriate for Wikipedia to require high standards of referencing.
Regarding the COI banner: Again, some reflection may lead you to agree that such banners are necessary because there are thousands of people who want to put material on articles related to themselves, and some of that material may be promotional rather than complying with procedures generally used here. Generally, such a banner is removed after a considerable period has elapsed, and during that period, uninvolved editors have applied standard guidelines to the article with any COI editors not editing the article (except to fix typos or simply glitches). Rather than editing, a COI editor should propose ideas on the talk page of the article. I suggest that no more images should be added for the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]


Hello, Reginald gray, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reginald Gray (artist)[edit]

An interesting article. Material on wikipedia needs to be referenced inline to show where the information has come from. There are a few references, but most of the material does not have any inline citations. See WP:REFB for help. See WP:FA for model articles. Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion may be of interest and demonstrates how at least each paragraph and often individual sentences or facts are referenced. Ty 18:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kindly do not remove the {{citations missing}} tag from Reginald Gray (artist), while they are still missing and the problem has not been redressed. See my post above. I trust this act is the result of misunderstanding the requirement, and will not recur, as continuation of it is likely to be seen as disruptive editing. Ty 04:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


In case you did not look at the history, I have explained today's butchery here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Reginald Gray (artist), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Airplaneman 15:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Reginald Gray (artist), you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Airplaneman 15:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


Information.svg Hello. 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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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. Please note new sections on talk pages go at the bottom of the page, and new posts under old posts. Ty 17:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted image[edit]

Please note what I have done on your behalf with two irritating, French-speaking editors on the Commons with names beginning with "t": Tryphon and Teofilo. Unfortunately I was too late to save in the second case. So please: re-upload the image of "three panels smashed and repaired by me June MCMLXII". I believe it is hpqscan0004 (5).jpg on your machine. Please be careful to upload it to File:Gray Triptych 1963.jpg on the Commons. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance tags[edit]

I see on the top of my page a banner with the scales of justice reading "an important contributor to this page may have a relation with its subject etc.,etc.," Would you know what they are referring to because I am in the dark. — Reginald gray (talk · contribs) via e-mail.

I thought the tags were self-explanatory. But if you really need explanation:

  • {{COI}}. Anyone looking even briefly at the edit history can see that the article has been written almost entirely by Idbuca (talk · contribs) and Reginald gray (talk · contribs). Airplaneman (talk · contribs) felt that this information should be displayed more prominently. Eventually some editor may decide that sufficient other people have contributed to justify removal of the tag. But I cannot see that happening in the foreseeable future. Why not ask Airplaneman what he would like to see before the tag is removed.
  • {{missing citations}}. In his messages here, Tyrenius (talk · contribs) is more concerned with the proper formatting of <ref>s. He probably does not realise the bigger problem of where the refs would point to if you created them! One solution to that would be to repeat all the facts on one of your own websites and then reference it from the article. It may seem like a lot of work but if it keeps Tyrenius quiet then it is worth it. But before doing that, check with Tyrenius to make sure that he is not going to insist on refs to third-party sources (which I think would be utterly inreasonable). Meanwhile the tag stays of course.

I hope you have read the sound advice from Johnuniq above - especially the "no more images" bit. You have a Commons page -use it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


I seem to keep spotting them! John Skelton (Irish artist) has recently popped up. I am assuming he would pass our notability tests.

We are still waiting for Commons:File:Gray Triptych 1963.jpg - see #Deleted image above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance tags - again![edit]

Firstly let me make it very clear to you that that the tags were not applied by "Wiki": they were applied by an individual editor who is instantly identifiable from the article history and is, I am sure, perfectly willing to discuss their edits.

Re the {{notability}} tag: this is a long way from actual deletion - the article would undoubtedly qualify for an AfD discussion before it was deleted. But why don't you: a) make sure you are logged in, b) follow this link and ask Spanglej what they would like to see by way of additional evidence of notability.

Re the {{COI}} tag: see my comments above. It would be utterly hypocritical of you to remove this tag. But again, why not ask Spanglej what they would like to see before the tag is removed.

We are still waiting for Commons:File:Gray Triptych 1963.jpg - see #Deleted image above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Reginald Gray (artist)[edit]

Hello Mr Grey. Apologies if I seemed a bit heavy handed with the tags. I'm sure all the Wikipedia guidelines and acronyms can be a bit bamboozling. There are a few things I would flag up as to why other editors are a bit twitchy- the phrases in blue will take you to WP guideline articles giving further info on the subject.

I notice you say "Wiki have put another banner on Reginald Gray|my page". Perhaps have a look at the listing of What Wikipedia is not, in particular re self-promotion and personal web space. We are a community and all pages can be freely edited by any contributor. We get into tricky waters if one person is effectively the only contributor of content to an article, especially an article about themselves - see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. This is where the conflict of interest comes in - see also Wikipedia:Autobiography. As far as I can surmise, Reginald Gray is your autobiography. Certain lines seem like personal reflection such as "Gray was a good friend of Brendan Behan and spent many hours in the Dublin pubs together" or "After doing his own cooking he would walk down rue Delambre to La Coupole where he would have coffee and a glass of Beaujolais with his artist friends". Wikipedia is first, last, foremost and only and encyclopedia and articles must attempt to reflect this. Reginald Gray is offered on par with articles on Caffeine, Yeats and Alzheimer's disease, for example. Remembering that the articles are not personal helps this. Wikipedia is also very clear that the where an editor adds or changes content, the burden is on them to and add strong, reliable and verifiable in-line sources, i.e. footnotes added next to the statement. This is one of the foundations of Wikipedia. The article Reginald Gray has almost no independent verification. Articles rely mostly on secondary sources - that is: analysis at one remove, not original research or personal view point. Articles, text books, reference books, others' biographies that mention the subject are often solid impersonal sources to draw from.

I wasn't suggesting deletion of the Reginald Gray article. I was suggesting there is a way to go before this an encyclopaedia article that reflects the guidelines. I also agree that the Commons gallery is the place for all the images. Different computers, blackberries, phones and things see the articles in different way depending on their spec. You see will not always see on your screen what other's see on theirs, especially with imaging.

I am happy to help with ongoing wikifying of the article if the above seems clear - why there are currently conflict of interest and other guideline issues - why it's not ok in its current form. I hope that all makes some sense to you. Feel free to discuss this further with me. If you answer on your talk page, I'll reply here. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Span. Thank you for your kind mail. I have a suggestion to make....I would like to give you freedom to delete everything on my page such" as being a friend of Brendan Behan" and the "glasses of Beaujolais at The Coupole" although they are true remarks. Also you can delete all the extras that fall into the same category. I myself have added seven subjects yesterday to "External Links" which shows international websites that have a pages on my subject. This I guess should be a certain proof of my integrity. It might be a good idea of you could contact my good friend Roger Haworth whom I am sure you know. He has also helped me in many ways. I have been a little embarrassed by friends calling me from different countries asking me why all these somewhat negative banners are at the top of my page. Once more I thank you for your kind message and hope you may help me to "clean up" the page. Best. Reginald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald gray (talkcontribs) 19:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Span. Thanks for you good advice, In the meantime I have added seven subjects om my "External Links" showing many important art websites worldwide that give me alot of space. Perhaps this could be an answer to the notability question. Coming back to my friendship with Brendan Behan....if you look at my "Sources" you can see many art books together with ISBN numbers and page indication. Two of these books are on the life of Behan and refer to me. Is this not enough proof of the relationship. Do you think you can find a way to take that notability banner off. I have had some phone calls from friends in Europe who dont understand the negative aspect. Best. Reginald.Reginald gray (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mr Gray. Thanks for your message. I have no doubt of your integrity and and looking at where your works have been displayed, I don't doubt your notability, though the case would have to be made in the article. But when you refer to Reginald Gray (artist) as "my page", I am not sure that the article is best placed as part of the Wikipedia project, which is a collective work. As a collective work you do not hold responsibility for the content, banners or images on the page, as it is shared. Perhaps your friends have misconceptions about Wikipedia.
I have been looking at the guidance on Conflict of interest. It says "COI editing is strongly discouraged...Editors with COIs are strongly declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing... It is not recommended that you write an article about yourself." As you can imagine, there are many hundreds of authors, companies, academics, musicians etc etc who want to have a page about themselves. It is tricky indeed if they are the ones doing the writing, even if they are best placed to know all about their own life and work. For now, I would encourage you (re the above) to put a note on your User page and on the article talk page declaring your conflict of interest. There would then be no need for a banner. There is no deadline in resolving these matters. I'll ask around for the advice of more senior editors in the meantime. I added in above, your message from my talk page, so we can keep the conversation together. Enjoy the weekend. Best wishes Span (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Span. I want to thank you for your message. I see the mentioned banner does not appear on my page and I see the page has been cleaned so I presume that this is your good work. Did you see the added "External Links" I put on the page. I will recontact you as soon as possible but I have come down with a rather serious eye problem and seeing the keyboard is not easy. Best. Reginald.Reginald gray (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mr Grey, yes, I did see the external links. I think the page would be much transformed if you could put page citations next to the facts in your articles, from books that mention you. Also, as I mentioned above, it would be a good idea to declare your interest in the page on your user page and the article talk page, then the COI banner could come down, too. I took off some the images, the ones that are in the commons gallery, so that now there are images to match the amount of text without "sandwiching" it. I edited also towards an encyclopaedic tone. Sorry to hear about your eye problem. Rest well. Span (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Span. Once more thanks......I am very naieve when it come to editing. You ask me to put citations next to thr facts from books that I mention. For example the book "Soho in the Fifties" Jonathan Fryer published 1998 by The National Portrait Gallery. London. Has a full page repro of my Bacon portrait on page 19 and on the preceding page 18 I quote the text reads "Reginald Gray's canvas captures some of the sitters ambiguity and vulnerability" Now I myself do not know how to put these citations properly on to the page. Also from the book "Brendan Behan a Life" by Michael O'Sullivan on page 190 I quote "Her mother and father waited downstairs with Celia's boyfriend, the painter and set designer, Reginald Gray,who was to be Brendan's bestman". and on page 191 "The odd assortment of guests left after breakfast, and Cecil collected his car from his house which was near the hotel. He drove Brendan, Beatrice, Celia and Reginald Gray to Crumlin to introduce Beatrice to her mother-in-law." Now dear Span could you please organize these citations on the page for me and then I imagine on opening the the edit on my page I can see how to do it...I hope! Re the COI banner you ask me to "declare my interest on my user page" Could you give me an example in words of what I should do.........Re my eye...after visiting the Western Eye Hospital here in London and going through many tests They informed that I have the eye disease called Blepharitis for which there is no cure. The sight from the said eye is very blurred. The doctors say the only thing to do is try and control it so as the right eye does not become infected.Antibiotics do not seem to work on this problem and operations on the subject have a very low percentage of success. So there I am. We have to live with what we've got. Best. Reginald.Reginald gray (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I will respond shortly at greater length shortly. I don't have internet access at home at the moment, so I'm sporadically online at the moment. I have eye problems too! No fun. Sorry to hear they are not clearing up. Yes, we have to live with what we have and appreciate as best we can, what does work. Oh the joy of internet at home again, when I do have it. There is no deadline, as they say, to article edits. We will work on it. Onwards and upwards! Best wishes Span (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding inline citations[edit]

Hi Mr Gray, Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you. I have had a thought that might help things: I have taken the liberty of setting up what's called a sandbox for the Reginald Gray (artist) page. That is: a place to experiment, try out citations, add links and things before changing the public article itself. It is not hidden, but is a sub-page of the personal talk pages. You can have many sandboxes to play with editing and it is commonly understood that no-one else will edit there, unless invited. The sandbox page I have set up for you is at User:Reginald gray/Article sandbox. I would recommend adding citations here to see how they work. It won't matter if they get messy. If this sandbox idea is not ok, I can delete the content and you can use it for something else.

About citations: if you wanted to add, say a reference from Brendan Behan a Life by Michael O'Sullivan on p190 about being Behan's bestman, here's how it might go. Under this window there is a <ref></ref> link in blue (bottom right of screen). You place the cursor next to the information in the article you want to reference and click the <ref></ref>. They will appear next to the text. Inside the two parenthesis you place the book / website etc to be referenced. First the surname of the author, first name, date of edition of the book, then the title, the publisher, the city of publication, the page number and lastly the long ISBN number. You have many of the sources already listed under the Further reading section. So a source you have listed like this

Brendan Behan a Life by Michael O'Sullivan. 1999. Publisher Robert Rinehart. New York. ISBN 1-56833-187-8

would be placed next to the text in question like this

"Gray became a close friend of Brendan Behan and was asked to be best man at Behan's wedding. "<ref> 'Sullivan, Michael O. (1999) ''Brendan Behan a Life'' Robert Rinehart. New York. p190-191 ISBN 1-56833-187-8 </ref>

For a website citation you use the same <ref></ref> brackets and add the web address inside. <ref> </ref> the you put square brackets around the address [ ] and add the details - the date of the article, the host organisation, the name of the gallery etc. So becomes [ "You want to free the world from oppression? " by Ariel Dorfman 08 January 2009 ''New Statesman''] which ends up looking like this "You want to free the world from oppression? " by Ariel Dorfman 08 January 2009 New Statesman

That's the basic way of doing it. The refs then show at the foot of the page as footnotes. I don't know where all the quotes are so it would be super hard for me to add the citations for you. The reality is that editing on Wikipedia will always entail knowing the basics of things like adding references. I don't think there's a way around it. It might take a while to get used to, but it will mean you can edit effectively. I'm sure it's better than me or others doing it. I recommend just trying the above out on the sandbox page (being careful to notice which is the 'play page' and which is the public article).

How does that sound?

As to the COI, WP recommend this as a model disclosure notice. You could just say:

"Inline with [[WP:COI]] I declare my interest in this article. I am the subject of the article [[Reginald Gray (artist)]]. I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I will abide by them. I aim to edit in collaboration, with neutrality and not for self-promotion. If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page [[User talk:Reginald gray]]. "

I would put this on the article talk page and on your [[User:Reginald gray|User page]]. Many might still prefer you not to edit Reginald Gray (artist) but at least it shows good will.

I hope that helps. This took me most of an afternoon to write. Please have a read of what I've said, have a play with the citations in the sandbox. You are by far the best person now to add the citations. Best wishes. Span (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Span. I have just read your message and I more than appreciate the time you have spent on my subject. I have just entered the text to my Userpage and hope it will be accepted in all good faith. This afternoon when I return from the eye clinic I will try to start the inline citations. One further question I would like to put to you. I had up to now two little Commons banners on my page. One being for the normal Commons and the second for the Commons annotated gallery. There were about a dozen images on the first mentioned but with no details so during the weekend I spent some hours uploading over sixty images with details etc., to the annotated gallery. To my surprise a few hours later on checking over my work I saw that each of the two Commons banners have disapeared from my page. Do you have any idea why this should be so. On the Google search page the two Commons mentioned are listed. Lastly would it be possible to send me your email address to me at as maybe from time to time we could chat about subjects that are not concerned with my page. Once more thanks for all the good work and time you have put in. Best. ReginaldReginald gray (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The citations are looking good! Congrats on that. Just a note that each citation refers to a particular page of text or a clump of pages. So you cite for "p36", for example, or if you wanted a clump you'd cite "pp36-42", rather than a list of pages from one publication "p3, 19, 105". Just a standard formatting thing.
In his edit summary Drmies (who seems like a great editor) said one link to {{Commons category|Reginald Gray|Reginald Gray (category)}} is enough. I think the second gallery just repeats the info from the first. I don't know wuch about general Wikicommons. If in doubt, ask the editor that made the change, in this case Drmies. It's perfectly standard to drop a note on someone's page to enquire (non-defensively) about a change. It may be the second one disappeared because an IP (someone without an account) was screwing about. They didn't give a reason for the change in the edit summary (never a good sign). I notice that User talk:Curlybob99, who made some changes yesterday, has been blocked for vandalism.
In terms of the external links, editors will get a bit huffy if you put more than about 5 or 6 up. They worry it will turn into a "link farm". So it's probably best to keep a list of them safe, maybe in the sand box, use them in your citations, and when the main article work is done, decide which are the 5 or 6 you think are most useful. They all look good and useful for compiling references.
I wanted to flag up again, I am no expert at any of this. I haven't been around that long on WP and am just learning as I go. I have to strongly caveat my advice. It's what seems to be true, from what I can gather in my meanderings. I am not an admin or a ancient editor from the first days. Nor am I any kind of techie. I wouldn't like you to think what I suggest has a great deal behind it, though i'm happy to help. i also wanted to say that it's still perfectly possible that an editor might rock up and ask to have the page removed due to conflict of interest and contravention of all kinds of policies (as I flagged at the start). It wouldn't be personal. I suspect it's worth checking this out before investing vast amount more work in the page. It's worth putting you disclaimer on the article talk page itself. Good luck with the recovery. Best wishes Span (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Span.

Thanks to you giving me a sandbox, I also got the Pinter on the page. Re the Commons annotated I guess you got this back on so many thanks. I dont need the previous commons. Have a good evening,,,I will raise a glass to you. Reginald Reginald gray (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, You're doing well. I saw two of your external links at the bottom of the article don't link: Reginald Gray at Irish Arts Review Dublin. Ireland and Reginald Gray at Museum of London. U.K. There's probably just a typo in the code. By the way, I would give citations for everything you possibly can, favouring secondary sources that talk about your work, rather than links to the work itself or self-published sources. Have a good evening. Best wishes Span (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year.[edit]

Hi and a happy 2011 to you. I hope the eyes have cleared up.

The Reginald Gray article is looking better and better. I would say a few things - that WP pages never put images in the centre of the page - it's not how the formatting works. Also, it strongly discourages "sandwiching" pictures, so that you have two facing each other on either side of the page. It crowds the text too much. A few well chosen images have more power than an article crammed with them. The Reginald Gray page is looking pretty sandwiched and crowded. It might be a good idea to take out a few and keep only the ones that reflect on life events. Keep on adding inline citations, too.

Take good care. Stay warm. Span (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Julien Friedler[edit]

I am pleased to see that you have made some edits to articles other than your autobio. Here is another one that has crossed my path - see this discussion. The work of Julien Friedler seems a long way from your style but you might care to go to fr:Julien Friedler and translate it into English. But even with my limited grasp of French, I would say it is too much pretentious "art-critic" stuff rather than a Wikipedia article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Rimbaud[edit]

Be careful not to add material to articles that may be construed as self-promotion. These edits to Rimbaud include the addition of your original work, and when you add your own work to Wiki it comes across as advertising. I see that you've been warned of COI in the past, so take care. María (habla conmigo) 16:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Donnelly by Gray.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Donnelly by Gray.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 02:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)