User talk:Mark lindamood

Would you please take a look
at the images at Man Controlling Trade and see if they are correct now? Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Images are flipped and correct now. Thank you.
 * Usually when you reply on my page you would click the New Section tab, thus separating your answer from what was there already. Also if you start with one or two of these : your answer will be indented, like mine is.  Thank you for noticing the image, I scanned it from a 35 mm slide and got it wrong and it has been there for a while. also you always end message with four of these, ~, that signs it.  Good sleuthing. Carptrash (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh‎
Hi Mark, unfortunately I reverted your addition to the VvG article as it was uncited; however if you were to find a suitable source for the claim, it would be a good addition. All the best Ceoil  (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, Ceoil. I am working at the Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. Can you clarify what needs citation? It is well established that Van Gogh's drawings in Arles are of the same topics as his paintings, and I made no new claim.  I have just now viewed Van Gogh's original drawing (Ploughman in the Fields near Arles) here in the museum's collection, in the company of the drawings curator.  Since the image was already available in Wikimedia Commons, it seems appropriate to add it to the Arles section of the Van Gogh page, especially since the page shows only 2 of Van Gogh's drawings, which were a big part of his oeuvre.  Sincerely, Mark --Mark lindamood (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Mark; always wanted to visit the NGA, bit jealous! I know, its a fairly innocuous claim on the Vincent page, but one of the (perhaps annoying) things about wiki is that statement at the end of paras are NOT assumed to to be covered by preceding cites, and so have to be specifically reff'd. Anyways, let me see what I can do here. p.s. enjoy the edit-a-ton, always happy to see another visual arts editors around, and hello form Ireland. Ceoil  (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ceoil. I've simply added the drawing to the small gallery under the Arles section and I'm content to add no text.  I think adding the drawing balances the presentation of his drawings relative to his paintings, since Van Gogh never ceased drawing at any stage of his artistic life.  Sincerely, Mark
 * Yes, thanks for that addition Mark. I see the text already says "tthe time in Arles became one of Van Gogh's more prolific periods: he completed 200 paintings, and more than 100 drawings and watercolours", so we are on the same page. Talk later. But re "Van Gogh never ceased drawing at any stage of his artistic life" - it was alas a very short and compressed artistic life. Ceoil  (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, tragically short career indeed - roughly 27 years old to 37, following those failed days as an art salesman in Paris, teacher/preacher in England, preacher for the mine workers in Holland, etc.
 * Have added your claim "Van Gogh never ceased drawing at any stage of his artistic life" to the reed drawing image caption. Am in the middle of working up an article on a Velázquez painting atm, will add a cite sometime in the next day or so. Its an obvious to some, but well made for general readers, observation. Ceoil  (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ps, if you edit your talk user page and make the link blue rather than red; you'll attract a lot less hassle from the likes of me. Pro tip. Ceoil  (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean the user page, not the user talk page above, when you write of turning the link bluse. But do note thst it is strictly against policy to treat an edit differently because the editor has a blue-linked user page, or even is and unregistered IP editor. The edit, not the editor, is what matters. I would also note that uncited is not the same thing as unverifible, and it is often better to insert a cn tag than to revert an unsourced addition that is not controversial and is likely accurate. WP:V does not require an inline source for every sentence. I do thank you for wanting to keep Wikipedia verifiable. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi DESiegel, I have reviewed and discussed the edit in in detail with the editor, and yes its verifiable and yes its a valuable contrib. I would like Mark to become part of the visual arts team, he has a lot of knowledge, so am encouraging on that basis. But yes, the user page, if I have to spell it out - am being pragmatic, he seems a nice and careful guy. Best. Ceoil  (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)