User talk:Kusum Bhagavat

Welcome[edit]

Hello Kusum Bhagavat, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Demiurge1000

Kusum Bhagavat, good luck, and have fun. ----Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there![edit]

I see you posted your question at User talk:M.O.X as well; in case you haven't noticed yet, he's responded to you; I was essentially going to say the same thing he did. Cheers, Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 20:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Kusum Bhagavat. You have new messages at Acather96's talk page.
Message added 13:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Acather96 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent uploads did not appear to be constructive and has been or soon will be deleted. Please read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — TAnthony^Talk 03:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will be wrong to delete important images by saying they are not constructive use. The onus of explaining why the image is not constructive use is on the inspector who is ready to delete the image. We will not allow such deletion. Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:”Not by bread alone - Kusum making chapattis”, by Mumbiram, Charcoal, Pune 1990.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:”Not by bread alone - Kusum making chapattis”, by Mumbiram, Charcoal, Pune 1990.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is objection that the images we uploaded are not used in any article. We are in the process of uploading these images to be included in the Mumbiram article as we have declared in the fill-up of the Upload Images procedure. We certainly deserve enough time to do that. B-bot has jumped the gun. He must not do that. Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image uploads[edit]

Hi, to date you have uploaded about 14 non-free (copyrighted) images without using them in articles. It is a violation of WP:NFCC to do this, as non-free images can only be used at Wikipedia under specific conditions. I'm happy to help guide you in using images properly in articles. It seems as though you may be trying to assemble a gallery of works of a particular artist in a potential article about that artist, and you should know that galleries are also an improper use of non-free images. It is likely one or two artwork images may be justifiable in the article of external sources are specifically discussing them, but more than that may be construed as a violation of image policy. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 18:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, these are the images, which I will tag for deletion. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 19:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Objection1: There is objection that the images we uploaded are not used in any article. Answer: We are in the process of uploading these images to be included in the Mumbiram article as we have declared in the fill-up of the Upload Images procedure. We certainly deserve enough time to do that. No-one should jump the gun. Nobody must do that.

Objection2: “It seems as though you may be trying to assemble a gallery of works of a particular artist in a potential article about that artist, and you should know that galleries are also an improper use of non-free images.”

Answer: Galleries exist in the article about Gauguin, who is comparable to Artist Mumbiram the leader of the Rasa Renaissance Movement. Gauguin is dead and Mumbiram is living. That should make no difference. Mumbiram is the last survivor of the species of classical personalist Rasa Artists in the midst of the hostile environment of impersonalist, abstract, installation art. We owe it to ‘Lonesome George’ to present him in all his glory. Gauguin is dead but Mumbiram is living. It will be our bounden duty to take care of this seed that is going to grow into a tree that will be produce many future Gauguin as fruit. Gauguin’s work is in public domain, because it is more than 100 years old. It is only fair, that Mumbiram holds the copyright for the images we are uploading. Wikipedia itself wishes that images uploaded and inserted in Wikipedia pages do not infringe upon the artist’s claim to the copyright and its commercial use. Therefore it is only fair that Gauguin’s page should have galleries of free usage images and Mumbiram’s page as so called galleries of non-free usage images. Besides we are allowing free usage of the images on Wikipedia and for educational and /or research purposes. Of course any derivative usage needs permission from the copyright holding artist Mumbiram.

Objection3 “It is likely one or two artwork images may be justifiable in the article of external sources are specifically discussing them, but more than that may be construed as a violation of image policy.” Answer: This badly constructed sentence shows that T Athony is only presenting speculations based on his prejudices. “It is likely” , “maybe justifiable”, “may be construed” are expressing only his personal biases and guesses. The inclusion of all these images in the “Mumbiram” and “Rasa Renaissance” pages of the last surviving, classical, personalist Rasa Artist Mumbiram and the Rasa Renaissance Movement that he is courageously and single handedly initiating. Let Gauguin’s Wikipedia page be a template for Wikipedia pages of “Mumbiram” and “Rasa Renaissance”. Wikipedia will be proud of it. Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. The issue here is that you are uploading copyrighted images. If you familiarize yourself with WP:NFCC, you will find that non-free images cannot be uploaded pending use in an article, they must be actively in use and justified with the proper fair use rationale and licensing tags. You can take all the time you want to create and improve the article, but any non-free images not used in an article need to be deleted, per our image policy. You are exactly correct that the Gauguin images are public domain and hosted at Wikimedia Commons, which allows them to be used freely, including in galleries. According to you Mumbiram is alive and owns the copyright, and you have not asserted any special permissions on his behalf to use these images here. I see that the images you uploaded to Commons for the Rasa Renaissance article were done so with permission that was confirmed by OTRS. You may reuse this images in the Mumbiram article, or I suggest you acquire the same permissions from the copyright holder for any additional ones. I do not know exactly how you intended to use these new images in the article, but I can tell you with assurance that the use of 14 non-free images in a single article is not acceptable. Again, the guidelines are explained in WP:NFCC. As I said above, it is likely that using one or two would be considered fair use if reliable sources cited in the article are discussing those particular works, but too many copyrighted images can violate policy. This has nothing to do with the artist's importance. I would also caution you against accusing other editors of prejudice and bias in such an unfounded way, as this may be construed as a personal attack. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 18:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, you have added File:Drupada is coming out of the river with Mumbiram, by Mumbiram, Watercolor, 1990.jpg to the article. This work is not mentioned in the article as being significant (and any such statement would require a source). This would make the image essentially decorative, violating WP:NFCC Policy #8.— TAnthony^Talk 18:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. We are beginning to appreciate your patience.

Suggestion1 ‘I see that the images you uploaded to Commons for the Rasa Renaissance article were done so with permission that was confirmed by OTRS. You may reuse this images in the Mumbiram article, or I suggest you acquire the same permissions from the copyright holder for any additional ones.‘ Response: We will certainly provide letters of permission for our usage on Wikipedia from the copyright holder Artist Mumbiram. If that is what makes a difference. We rightfully intend to use the Gauguin Wikipedia page as template for Mumbiram Wikipedia page. If somebody is not equipped with mature insights into the world of esoteric art and aesthetics to see that in terms of historical and aesthetic movements in art these two artists are of the same category and calibre then it should be left to others who are better equipped. Otherwise it will be subverting the principle of fairness that Wikipedia prides upon.

Suggestion 2 ‘…but too many copyrighted images can violate policy. This has nothing to do with the artist's importance.’ Response: You have not acknowledged our logical reasoning that if multiple images are allowed on the Gauguin page they should also be allowed for Mumbiram page. They are of similar historical and artistic importance. Wikipedia does not pride itself for being robotic in sensitive subjects such as classical fine art and art movements (in any case, if as you say “it has nothing to do with the artist’s importance then why shouldn’t Gauguin and Mumbiram Wikipedia pages get similar treatment.) We insist that Wikipedia is also an encyclopaedia that can cope with and meaningfully record personalities and movements that bring about a change in the way we view the world.

Suggestion 3 ‘This work is not mentioned in the article as being significant (and any such statement would require a source). This would make the image essentially decorative.’ Response: References are being added to show where certain images appear in publications listed as references. Any artistic creation of an artist such as Mumbiram is considered published as soon as it is created just as it is considered copyrighted as soon as it is created. It needs no other source to justify or prove its existence. Certainly it is not ‘decorating’ anything else whatsoever for whomsoever. Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to give you the opportunity to justify the use of images in the article, but based on your comments I think I need to make something clear. We cannot compare the image usage in Gauguin to Mumbiram because the images you have uploaded are not freely useable. The images in Gauguin are there because they are not restricted, not because of his importance as an artist. Per your previous comment, citations are not required to prove their existence or ownership; to satisfy WP:NFCC policy #8, Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. This means that an external source needs to discuss the image in some way that is significant to the understanding of the topic. So far you have not demonstrated this for the images added to the article.— TAnthony^Talk 23:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Please do not use non-free images in your user space article drafts or your sandbox. I know you are working on the article, but non-free images can only be uses in article space. This is a serious matter. You may be blocked from editing for violating image policy, I'm trying to help you out but I'm not sure you're understanding.— TAnthony^Talk 23:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules about “free use” and “non-free use” images are framed for the vast majority of Wikipedia articles where text usually suffices to explain the topic discussed in the article and visuals can at best enhance the understanding of the article. In the case of a visual artist such as Mumbiram and a nascent visual art-movement such as Rasa Renaissance that he is espousing the visuals that is the paintings are the essence and gist of the article and the text is enhancing the understanding of the topic being discussed. Therefore our usage of “non-free content” falls exactly in the category that you have so relevantly quoted in blue, viz.: “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” The understanding of the topics discussed in articles such as Mumbiram and Rasa Renaissance would be next to nothing without the visuals of the paintings and visuals of what inspired the paintings. This is because these are articles about a visual artist and a movement in visual art. There could be no better example of articles where the dictum that you have quoted in blue applies, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” We can clearly see that the Wikipedia page about Gauguin is allowed a vast number of images of paintings and photos of the artist exactly for this same reason. That those are free usage images is only incidental. We are happy that with your help and our insights we are able to zero in on the precise reason why the images we are uploading must remain in the articles of this visual artist and his visual art movement. We appreciate your suggestion that the images should be linked to the text or the sources quoted. You must have noticed that we are already improving in this matter. Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that you are trying to improve the article, and we can go back and forth with this forever. The bottom line is, yes it is probably necessary to show artwork in the bio article of the artist, but because the images are copyrighted, we are limited in doing so. Even if it is determined that they are important to understanding the topic, it is still very unlikely that seven (or more) copyrighted images won't be considered a violation of policy. Jackson Pollack has two images. Again, you can't compare this situation to Gauguin because those images are not non-free.— TAnthony^Talk 15:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must not tire of going back and forth, because we are definitely making progress. We have zeroed in on the Wikipedia guideline that the use of non-free images will be allowed (only) when it enhances the understanding of what the article is about. So now you cannot escape addressing yourself to what the article is about. Are you ready for that ? You are citing Jackson Pollock’s page having only two images of his paintings. Well, in his case even one would have been enough for the reader to understand that he made paintings by dripping paint on his canvases. And the same would have been true about most abstract painters. Rasa Renaissance is creating an alternative to such painters. Every single Rasa painting is the outcome of a philosophy, life style and unique interaction between the artist and his living muses. Rasa Renaissance is bringing human emotions back into art and nothing brings out this vital aspect of a Rasa Artist and Rasa Renaissance in general than the paintings themselves. I think we should invite wider discussion on this topic of vital importance. For example there is someone with administrator privilege that has commented on the talk page of Gauguin article who says: ‘I don't think the article is anywhere near being "overloaded" by images. As for Wikipedia not being meant as "art gallery site", I don't know where this comes from, either. I would love to eventually see individual articles for every major work of art, and list articles for every artist that would have pictures of all of their works with a brief description. How is that not encyclopedic? I'm replacing the images. Postdlf 01:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)’ This administrator has a law degree as well as a Bachelor of Fine Art. It is sure to create a constructive discussion that will enhance Wikipedia’s intentions of being a comprehensive encyclopaedia of ideas as well as mere facts. Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would love Postdlf to take a look at your use of images in Mumbiram, and assuming he/she shares my opinion then perhaps he/she can better explain to you why you have not yet adequately justified the use of the seven non-free images in the article. I can see that you are passionate about this artist and his work, and I understand your argument that many of his works are important, but the current NFCC are very strict about the use of non-free images, period. The article has a lot of other issues that need to be addressed, in particular a lack of inline citations and a lot of unsourced commentary and praise about the artist and his work. By improving these things and better discussing individual works using cited sources, you may naturally create places in the article where the use of images is more appropriate. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk

Right, it's not a fair comparison to Gauguin because all of his works are in the public domain. So we can be comprehensive. With non-free works, we need enough written content specific to each image to justify it within the terms of WP:NFC policies, specifically WP:NFUR. I'd love for our articles to include images of every work of art by every notable artist, but copyright law and Wikipedia policy simply don't permit it when those works are copyrighted. postdlf (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TAthony for your great patience. You are right in observing that we are passionate about Rasa Art and Rasa Renaissance.

Thank you postdlf for joining this ongoing discussion. We feel you are sensitive to the romance of intimate intertwining of the art and life circumstances of classical artists such as Mumbiram or Gauguin. This was entirely missing in the life and art of artists of the last century. Rasa Art and Rasa Renaissance are bringing back this romance into art. We are confident Wikipedia is fully capable in evolving its standards and regulations to accommodate this romance of art and life of such visual artists. We all wish Wikipedia to be a comprehensive encyclopaedia.

Going back to TAnthony’s earlier suggestion: ‘I see that the images you uploaded to Commons for the Rasa Renaissance article were done so with permission that was confirmed by OTRS. You may reuse this images in the Mumbiram article, or I suggest you acquire the same permissions from the copyright holder for any additional ones.’ And also: ‘You are exactly correct that the Gauguin images are public domain and hosted at Wikimedia Commons, which allows them to be used freely, including in galleries....This has nothing to do with the artist's importance.’

We seek clarification about the following three points:

1. In view of the valuable inputs provided by Tathony and postdlf we understand that we will be able to include as many images of Mumbiram’s paintings and photos of Mumbiram’s life circumstances as we find relevant in understanding the genre of Rasa Art and the movement of Rasa Renaissance that Mumbiram is introducing and practising provided that such images are in the free-usage category.

2. If we obtain permission from the copyright holder Artist Mumbiram of such images for uploading in the free usage category confirmed by OTRS then there should be no issue in including all such relevant images in Mumbiram and/or Rasa Renaissance articles.

3. We understand that when the copyright holder for the low-resolution images allows their upload in the free usage category he is not giving away his copyright on the original painting or any other higher resolution images of the painting.

Please advise if we are right in our understanding in the above three statements. Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions accompanying the images of Rasa Paintings cannot be ignored[edit]

It is possible that you did not notice the extensive descriptions that accompany the images of paintings that we are talking about. This is necessary and possible only about the paintings of a classical Rasa Artist such as Mumbiram or paintings in the Rasa Renaissance category. These are rasa critics of Rasa Artists according to the Rasa Theory of Aesthetic Criticism. These are absolutely unique and necessary for the understanding of the topics discussed in articles Mumbiram and Rasa Renaissance. These descriptions are made available to Wikipedia users without any restrictions whatsoever. They are as important for the understanding of Artist Mumbiram and the art movement Rasa Renaissance as what appears in the text of the article. It would be wrong to ignore these descriptions. These descriptions most eminently justify the presence of these images in these articles. Of course it is unusual and unique. How the images are to be critiqued is also absolutely necessary for the understanding of the rasa art presented in the articles. (In the case of vast majority of images uploaded on Wikipedia such aesthetic critique doesn’t exist, is not needed.) It would be wrong to ignore these critiques. They are to be seen as integral part of the article as much as the text of the article. They are also eminently justify the use of the images they are “describing”. Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links for Ramdas Paranjpe[edit]

Hi, thank you for writing Ramdas Paranjpe. I've tagged it to say I think it could do with some more links added to it pointing to other articles. If it's possible to add some online sources, that would be great too - offline sources are fine, but readers may want to learn more about him or check up on some facts, and maybe we can help with that. If you have questions, you're welcome to ask me on my talk page. All the best, › Mortee _talk 10:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]