The follow-up mail to the previous one. Again please cc him on replies.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sankar Viswanathan <>
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahasaraswati.jpg
To: Bishakha Datta <>

Thank you, Bishaka.

Posting to the India list would be ideal. But I do not know how to do it.


Service to Humanity is Service to God

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Sankar Viswanathan <
> > wrote:
>> Hello Bishaka,
>> Thank you for your response to my mail.
>> The discussion is still going on. But the dice is loaded in favor of
>> deletion.
>> There are certain points which were raised in the discussion.
>> Wikipedia is paranoid about Copyright. Of course this is a result of the
>> U.S law and any number of cases. There was a time when any image available
>> on the web was accptable to Wikippedia. I think they had some problems then.
>> Of course there are some people who take delight in Deletion. Kind of a
>> sadism.
>> <<So to keep such images in Commons, either Indian government or Commons
>> needs to have a policy addressing all pictures for which original authorship
>> is unknown, or at the least about paintings of God which is widely
>> available. Until then, we can either assume good faith and keep this image
>> or start a new mass DR for all the images in the category Hindu deities.>>
>> Indian government will not do anything. But Wiki Commons can do something.
>> Another thing which is surprising is there is no assumption of Good faith. I
>> am a volunteer. How do I benefit by the uploading of the image? Actually
>> most volunteers like me do end up by spending money, because my internet
>> connection is not free. I do not use an internet connection provided by any
>> organization. This atitude of "there is no assumption of Good faith" will
>> put off many people.
>> I can not imagine anybody from India suing Wikipedia over an obscure
>> painting in a temple.
>> Now they are quoting the U.K law on which the Indian law is modelled to
>> say that Wall paintings are not covered. This would effectively stop upload
>> of many of the paintings in temples.
>> But in India in a public temple, the installed idol itself is held to be
>> the temple’s legal owner, and the beneficiaries—those to whom the endowment
>> is dedicated --—are the general public. Does this change the position? I
>> wonder. I have posted this.
>> I am having another problem with this image. There is one person  called
>> Pebble101 who is bent on deleting this image from the article.He deleteds it
>> time and again for no reason. He could be the author of the last unsigned
>> remark on the deletion page.
>> The problem is there is nothing I can do. When I had such problems earlier
>> I was asked to go for Arbitration.
>> I thought I had to share my concerns with some one.
>> Thank you.
>> Sankar
>> Service to Humanity is Service to God
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list

Reply via email to